Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Cost

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Health what schemes he has under consideration with a view to reducing the cost of the Health Service.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Marquand): I have this matter under constant review, but I have no particular statement to make on it at the present time.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Would the right hon. Gentleman say why, a year ago, having taken power to do so, the Government did not proceed, after a Cabinet decision, with the prescription charge? Is he now actively considering plans which will effect economies without affecting the principle of the National Health Service?

Mr. Marquand: Many changes have been made, such as reduction in dentists' and opticians' fees and the cessation of payment of travelling expenses to patients. That kind of thing is always under review.

Hearing Aids

Mr. Perkins: asked the Minister of Health what is the waiting period for hearing aids for non-priority cases in Gloucestershire.

Mr. Marquand: At the present rate of supply the majority of patients at the Bristol distribution centre, which serves Gloucestershire, would have to wait nearly three years. I have, therefore, decided to review allocations so as to improve the situation.

Mr. H. A. Price: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that a Lewisham housewife, of whom he has been informed, and who is deaf, has been told that she cannot have deaf aid until 1954; and if he will take steps to reduce the waiting period in this case.

Mr. Marquand: I think it must be left to the hospitals concerned to decide which of their patients need to be given priority over others who are waiting.

Mr. Price: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me and the House whether he is satisfied that housewives have the proper degree of priority and, if there are others with greater priority, how long they are expected to wait?

Mr. Marquand: So far as the question of waiting is concerned, I am reviewing the allocation, as I have said, to see that it is entirely fair throughout the country.

Mr. Profumo: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the Government's declared intention to supply bone conduction hearing aids under the National Health Scheme when a suitable system is approved, which service will include the free supply of batteries, he will give an assurance that those people who have formerly had to buy commercial aids of this type because of the lack of an appliance approved by his Department will also be eligible for the supply of batteries under this scheme.

Mr. Marquand: No, Sir.

Mr. Profumo: Is it consistent with the principles of Socialism that unfortunate people who are suffering from a particular type of acute deafness should be denied any share in the Health Service merely because they cannot wait while the Government carry out protracted experiments on an aid which one day they will receive free?

Mr. Marquand: We have provided a large number of services under the Health Service and at present there is no intention of extending them.

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Health how many persons from the area administered by the West Cornwall Hospital Management Committee have received hearing aids during the past six months; how many are on the waiting


list; how far delay is due to the shortage of skilled personnel at the Plymouth fitting centre; and what are the prospects of additional technicians being appointed soon.

Mr. Marquand: The figures are 49 and 411. I understand that there is now no shortage of skilled personnel at the Plymouth centre.

Mr. Hayman: Would the Minister consider setting up a clinic in Redruth, because of the high travelling expenses involved? Will he bear in mind that Redruth is the centre of a population of about 200,000 within reasonable travelling distance?

Mr. Marquand: I will look into that suggestion and write to my hon. Friend.

Aureomycin

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there is a great shortage of aureomycin in this country to meet the requirements of the medical profession; and what steps he is taking to make good the deficiency.

Mr. Molson: asked the Minister of Health what steps have been taken to ensure the availability of aureomycin.

Mr. Marquand: A recent temporary shortage has now been overcome. Deliveries of aureomycin in capsule form from the British factory are adequate to meet present needs.

Sir T. Moore: As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have raised this matter before, but I have a particular reason for raising it again. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that we were recently informed that the former Foreign Secretary had his pneumonia cleared in three days as a result of using aureomycin? That being so, will he not take further action in order to make it readily available to every section of the community?

Mr. Marquand: I am assured that it is readily available. There was a delay due to initial technical trouble at the South Wales factory, but that has now been remedied and there is an adequate supply.

Tuberculosis

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Minister of Health the number of beds

available in tuberculosis sanatoria in Wales in the years 1939, 1944 and at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Marquand: The information is as follows: 1939, 1,828; 1944, 1,998; 1950, 2,515. Included in the foregoing figures were 116 in 1944 and 266 in 1950 vacant owing to shortage of staff.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the Minister realise that the number of available beds, though increasing, is increasing less quickly than the length of the waiting lists?

Mr. Marquand: No, Sir.

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Health the number of nurses employed in tuberculosis sanatoria in Wales in the years 1939, 1944 and at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Marquand: No figures are available for 1939, but in 1944 there were 441 whole-time, and at the end of 1950 540 whole-time and 207 part-time.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: asked the Minister of Health how many beds for tuberculosis patients were available and staffed in all types of hospitals in England and Wales in July, 1938, July, 1949, July, 1950 and January 1951, respectively.

Mr. Marquand: I regret that figures in this form are not available. With regard to 1949 and 1950, however, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave to the hon. Members for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton), and for Lewis-ham, North (Sir Austin Hudson), on 1st February and 25th January respectively. For the pre-war period the number has been estimated at about 30,000 beds.

Dental Schools (Intake)

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: asked the Minister of Health what was the annual intake of dental schools in the years 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950, respectively.

Mr. Marquand: The figures are 641. 654, 662, 611 and 606 respectively.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: In view of the recent decrease in numbers how long does the right hon. Gentleman think it will be before there is an adequate number of dentists in the country?

Mr. Marquand: The recent decrease is explained by the fact that during the war


there was a lowered intake and, therefore, in the first few years after the war it was possible to increase the entry. It is now necessary to get a balance, and the numbers have been slightly reduced. I agree that the total intake is not satisfactory in the country as a whole.

Chemists (Remuneration)

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: asked the Minister of Health if he will consider the appointment of a committee to inquire into the average earnings of pharmacists within the health service.

Mr. Marquand: No, Sir. The remuneration of chemists is under review by the appropriate Whitley Council, and I do not think that the appointment of a separate committee at the present juncture would serve any useful purpose.

Blood Donors

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Health to what cause he attributes the fact that the number of rejections among blood donors is greater now than it was in 1939.

Mr. Marquand: Before the war there were about 3,000 regular donors; there are now over 400,000 on the panel.

Mr. Bossom: Would the Minister kindly answer my Question, which asks for the cause of the deterioration in the situation? Does he disagree with the report of the Greater London Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service, which says that it is due to the absence of meat in the diet of our people?

Mr. Marquand: The hon. Member did not ask about the deterioration. He asked why the number of rejections is greater than it was in 1939. Clearly, when the number of donors is very much greater it naturally follows that the number of rejections is greater. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, I did not think it would be necessary to give lessons in simple arithmetic. The number of donors is much larger and the number of rejections is necessarily larger, too, because the rejection proportion is about constant.

Mr. George Jeger: Are vegetarians automatically rejected?

Mr. Peter Freeman: On a point of order. Is that reflection on vegetarians justified, Sir?

Major Guy Lloyd: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman make any attempt to answer the Question on the Order Paper? It is a perfectly straight and honest Question. Why does he not give a reply? What is the number of rejections? If the right hon. Gentleman does not know, why does he not say so?

Mr. Marquand: I have said that the proportion of rejections is constant, and I am satisfied that it is.

Sir Herbert Williams: Not in the original answer.

Mr. Marquand: I was asked in the Question about the number and not the proportion. I have to answer the Question which the hon. Member has put on the Order Paper and not one which he might have in his head.

Mortality Rate

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Health to what causes he attributes the fact that the numbers of deaths in. England and Wales in each of the 10 completed quarters since the National Health Service was introduced in July, 1948, has been higher than in the corresponding quarter of the 12 months ended 30th June, 1948.

Mr. Marquand: The fact is attributable mainly to the exceptionally low mortality in the period selected for comparison. This appears to have been due to the very favourable weather in that period combined with a remarkable absence of influenza.

Sir H. Williams: Having regard to the fact that even taking into account the increased population, the mortality has risen 10 per cent. and the number of deaths is twice as many as Hitler killed by bombs, is it not time the right hon. Gentleman did something about our National Health Service?

Mr. Frederic Harris: Does not the Minister think that the ever increasing difficulty of getting patients into hospital, as was instanced recently at Croydon, may be one of the contributory factors to this unhappy state of affairs?

Mr. Marquand: No, Sir, I cannot accept any of these implications. Nothing is more dangerous than the use of statistics by untrained persons, The hon.


Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) selected figures peculiarly favourable to his case. The death rates do not show any sharp change at all over the period from 1937 onwards.

Medical Practices, Cardiff

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the difficulty caused in the Canton area of Cardiff to people who wish to register with another doctor following upon the death of their own doctor; and how long will they have to wait before being permitted to do this.

Mr. Marquand: I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the practice of the late Dr. David Trevor Evans of 103, Cowbridge Road, Cardiff. This practice is, I understand, being carried on by a deputy pending the appointment of a successor. There has been an unfortunate delay as the doctor first appointed subsequently withdrew. The question should be settled in a week or so.

Mr. Thomas: I am much obliged.

Dr. Hill: Would not the Minister agree that any patient of the deceased practitioner has the right to select another doctor now, quite apart from the question of succession?

Mr. Marquand: Certainly.

Mr. G. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some people have applied to change to another doctor and that the local executive council have refused permission?

Festival of Britain (Visitors)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the impending large influx of visitors for the Festival of Britain, he intends to use his powers to impose a charge on them for their use of the National Health Service.

Mr. Marquand: No, Sir. I consider that the occasion would be most inopportune for such measures.

Mr. Keeling: Why did the Minister take these powers? Is it not clear that these visitors will be a substantial drain on the National Health Service, which is already overburdened, to the detriment of

British residents? Would it not be a good thing to discourage its use by visitors by imposing a substantial charge except, of course, where there is an agreement for reciprocity of treatment?

Mr. Marquand: Nothing would be more unfortunate than to ask our fellow subjects in the Dominions and Colonies to come here, especially this year, and then to levy a charge if they have a slight cold. Nothing would be more vexatious to the people of this country than to ask them to take their identity cards to the surgery during the currency of the Festival of Britain in order to prove they are not foreigners.

Mr. Snow: Does my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that it is apparently the desire of the Conservative Party that we should no longer care for the stranger within our gates?

Private Hospital Beds

Mr. Grey: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that patients urgently requiring surgical treatment have such treatment delayed for several months due to lack of beds in the hospitals, while on the other hand patients with means are able to enter private wards without delay; and what steps he intends to take to end this state of affairs.

Mr. Marquand: If my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of any cases known to him where admission was surgically urgent and was refused because the patient could not pay, I shall be only too glad to look into them.

Mr. Grey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I know of a case where a man had to wait 10 months before he got a bed? As there must be a considerable number of such cases in the country, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the whole principle of private beds should be reviewed?

Mr. Marquand: My hon. Friend put to me two questions. First, I am not aware of the case he mentioned, but I would be glad to look into it; second, a certain number of private beds were provided in the Health Service and I am not, as at present advised, prepared to alter that situation.

Mr. Keenan: Is the Minister aware that the reservation of private beds is causing


a great deal of trouble and that my hon. Friend the Member tor the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) reported to his predecessor a case where the Royal Infirmary had 45 beds available but refused a patient a bed one night in January?

Mr. Marquand: I hope my hon. Friends will do all they can to assure their constituents that, where there are cases urgently requiring admission, they should be admitted, and that there is nothing to prevent it.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Is it not a fact that the law provides that these pay beds are only to be made available if they are not required for urgent cases?

Mr. Marquand: indicated assent.

Mrs. Braddock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is the general practice in the teaching hospitals deliberately to keep beds empty and to refuse to admit cases which require attention?

Mr. Marquand: I should like notice of that question.

Dental Goods Industry (Report)

Mr. Leather: asked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take regarding the Monopolies Commission Report on the Dental Industry.

Mr. Wilkes: asked the Minister of Health what action he intends to take on the Report by the Monopoly Commission on Dental Goods in order to lower the costs incurred by the National Health Service in respect of these goods.

Mr. Marquand: I hope to lay before the House within the next few days an Order under Section 10 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948. I hope that elimination of the practices which at present restrict competition in the dental trade will result in a reduction of prices.

Mr. Leather: Would the Minister not agree with the opinion of the Commission that it is wrong to prohibit in one industry what is allowed in other industries? Would he therefore tell us whether he is prepared to recommend to his colleagues that they should grasp the nettle and ban all collective boycotts?

Mr. Marquand: I would not agree that it is right to permit an abuse to continue

merely because it is widespread, and in any case the majority of the Commission recommended immediate action.

Mr. Keeling: Does not the Minister agree that he should await the report on three or four industries in order that there may be a co-ordinated policy?

Mr. Marquand: No, Sir. If a burglar breaks into my house I do not ask the police to wait until 10 other cases have occurred.

Mr. Wilkes: As many requests have been made to the Minister to reduce the cost of the Health Service, does he not agree that the implementation of some of the recommendations by the Monopoly Commission on Dental Goods would tend to have that welcome effect?

Mr. Marquand: I am sure it will.

Prescriptions (Patent Medicines)

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Minister of Health what steps are being taken to encourage medical practitioners and hospitals to use equivalent remedies laid down by his Department in preference to patent medicines; and what is the estimated value of patent remedies still being prescribed under the health service.

Mr. Marquand: All doctors, both in general practice and in hospitals, have been asked to prescribe in accordance with the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Prescribing. I am in consultation with the British Medical Association on the question of what further information or advice would be helpful to doctors. I regret that the information requested in the second part of the Question is not available.

Mr. Cooper: Since my right hon. Friend will be very well aware that many of these patent remedies have little or no medicinal value, does he not think he should go further and eliminate the high cost of most of these patent medicines by forbidding their use in the Health Service?

Mr. Marquand: There is no intention of forbidding it, but as I say, I am in consultation with professional opinion which, naturally, is very favourable to the use of the types of prescription laid down in the British formulary.

Sir H. Williams: Does that also apply to M. and B. which, I believe, is a product of a proprietary firm and which has been used by a large number of hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Marquand: It certainly is not a patent medicine, and that is the point to which my hon. Friend referred.

Staff Establishments

Mr. G. Cooper: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to ensure that he has the services of suitably qualified advisers to check staff establishments at all levels of the Health Service in order to reduce some of the present excessive staffing, especially of administrative and other non-medical grades, including officials in his Department.

Mr. Marquand: I satisfy myself that my advisers have appropriate qualifications in each of the fields with which they are concerned.

Mr. Cooper: Since the staff establishment checking system employed during the war by the R.A.F, and the Army, and later by the Navy, was very successful in eliminating unnecessary staffs, does not the Minister think that it would be appropriate to use this system also in the Health Service in the interests of the country?

Mr. Marquand: I am pressing on with these inquiries as rapidly as possible with the persons already chosen.

Foreigners, Treatment (Cost)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Health the estimated cost during the fiscal year 1951–52 of providing benefits under the National Health Service to foreigners visiting and/or working in the United Kingdom, including the cost of such equipment as hearing aids, spectacles, dentures and surgical accessories.

Mr. Marquand: Separate figures for this are not available.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the fact that there must be a considerable cost involved in this service to foreign visitors, would the right hon. Gentleman consider instituting a minimum residential qualification for those receiving free benefits and use his powers to charge foreigners where that minimum qualification is not fulfilled?

Mr. Marquand: I am advised that the cost of treating foreign visitors is almost negligible.

Sir H. Williams: How does the right hon. Gentleman know?

Reciprocal Arrangements

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Health which British Dominions and foreign countries are now providing visiting British nationals with facilities reciprocal to the National Health Service; the progress of negotiations for a wider measure of reciprocity; and the general nature of the response from Dominion and Foreign Governments.

Mr. Marquand: Arrangements for medical assistance to indigent persons in the Western Union countries have been ratified so far by Belgium and the Netherlands. Otherwise, there are no reciprocal arrangements with other countries, nor any being negotiated, although there are certain arrangements with the Isle of Man and with Jersey and Guernsey.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the fact that those reciprocal arrangements apply to only one foreign country, would the right hon. Gentleman consider charging all foreign nationals visiting Britain for the benefits they receive under this service unless they come from this one foreign country?

Mr. Marquand: I am satisfied that the cost of ascertaining whether a person is a foreigner or not would far exceed the present cost of providing him with treatment.

Mr. Langford-Holt: When the right hon. Gentleman says that no negotiations are taking place, does he mean that negotiations which were started have broken down or that no negotiations have been initiated?

Mr. Marquand: I am not aware that I referred to negotiations. I said there were no reciprocal arrangements with other countries. I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon; I said that no arrangements were being negotiated. I must have notice of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Nabarro: What proof would be necessary in such circumstances? Presumably if a patient is not on a doctor's list he cannot be an English national, but must be a foreigner. Is that not so?

Mr. Marquand: If I go to Blackpool for my holidays I do not become a foreigner.

Cortisone

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied with the recorded success in the use of cortisone; and if he will now sponsor its more widespread use in this country.

Mr. Marquand: The use of this scarce drug is still under investigation. Its wider use must depend upon greater knowledge of its effects and upon availability of supplies. I hope shortly to provide a little more for use in hospitals.

Wing Commander Bullus: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the recent experiments in this country which have confirmed the successes already obtained in the United States?

Mr. Marquand: I understand that the Medical Research Council is still continuing this research, and advises that uncontrolled use at present is not desirable in view of the risk of untoward effects.

Clerk, Glamorgan (Dismissal Notice)

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that Mrs. Freda C. James, a clerk at CefnHirgoed Isolation Hospital of the Mid-Glamorgan Hospital Management Committee, was dismissed on 31st August, 1950, on marriage; that the General Council of the Whitley Councils for the Health Services (Great Britain) subsequently recommended that no woman should be disqualified from obtaining or be subject to dismissal from employment in the National Health Service simply by reason of marriage; and, as he has agreed with these views, if he will secure the reinstatement of Mrs. James in her employment with the Hospital Management Committee.

Mr. Marquand: My information is that the employment of Mrs. James by the Mid-Glamorgan Hospital Management Committee was terminated, owing to staff reorganisation, on 31st August, 1950—some 12 months after the date of her marriage—and that it was at her own wish that the letter giving her notice assigned marriage as the reason.

Mr. Hutchinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer which he has just given me is contradicted by the terms of the letter that was sent to this lady by the secretary of the hospital management committee, in which she was informed that it is the policy of the management committee not to employ married women in administrative posts?

Mr. Marquand: I have explained why that letter was sent.

Mr. Hutchinson: In view of the conflict between the statement which this lady has made and the right hon. Gentleman's reply, will he cause an inquiry to be held into the case?

Mr. Marquand: I could not have answered the hon. and learned Gentleman's question without having made that inquiry.

Mr. Hutchinson: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

Immunisation (Operation)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the case, details of which have been sent to him, of a boy, eight years of age, whose brain and physical health have been affected by an operation of immunisation against diphtheria given him in 1943 at an official health clinic, as established by the National Hospital of Diseases; what compensation is payable to this child or his parents; why such a long time elapsed between the boy being seen by the Cardiff doctor and being sent to a specialist; and whether other similar cases have been reported.

Mr. Marquand: The case has not previously been brought to the notice of my Department. I am looking into it, and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Meat Ration

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Health what reports he has received from his medical advisers as to how the latest cut in the meat ration is likely to affect the general health of the community.

Mr. Marquand: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) and the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) on 8th February.

Brigadier Rayner: Is it not a fact that it is now laid down that blood donors should supply blood twice a year—whereas they previously supplied blood three or four times a year—owing entirely to the prevalence, even among the fittest people, of some degree of anaemia due to shortage of red meat?

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: As the right hon. Gentleman has referred the House to replies given a month ago, may I ask whether he has considered the consequence of the operation of Statutory Instrument No. 314, which reduces the meat content of sausages and which so disgusted hon. Members opposite that they absented themselves from the Chamber when it was discussed?

Mr. Marquand: I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the wise observations of the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) during that debate.

Day Nurseries

Mr. J. N. Browne: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the increasing demand by women to work in industry, he will make a statement on the Government's policy in regard to the provision of staff for day nurseries.

Mr. Marquand: It is open to local health authorities to employ whatever staff may be necessary for their day nurseries.

Mr. Browne: Is the Minister aware that an increasing number of mothers are being forced to go out to work although most of them would much prefer to stay at home and enjoy their children's company? Is he further aware that if the cost of living continues to rise he will be faced with the necessity of providing more nurseries and more nursery staffs?

Mr. Marquand: I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and I am advised that at present there is little evidence of a demand for the provision of increased nursery facilities on account of industrial requirements.

Doctors (Statistics)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Health if he can give the population and numbers of doctors resident in Bournemouth, Brighton, Reading and Stoke-on-Trent, respectively.

Mr. Marquand: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Smith: Do the figures indicate that the people resident in industrial centres are not getting the medical attention they should, while medical practitioners are overworked, and, if so, will my right hon. Friend, as soon as possible, consider making an order so that there can be an allocation of medical men in proportion to the population?

Mr. Marquand: This is constantly under consideration, and every effort is made to man-up under-doctored areas.

Mr. Smith: Will my right hon. Friend consider this as a matter of urgency, as people in industrial centres are working harder and faster than ever, and require the medical attention which they should be able to get?

Mr. Marquand: I am giving it immediate attention.

Following is the answer:

The population and number of doctors resident in these areas are, according to the latest available figures as follow:

—
Population (30th June, 1950)
Doctors (1st January,1951)


Bournemouth
…
139,600
82


Brighton
…
157,600
65


Reading
…
115,470
64


Stoke-on-Trent
…
275,700
94

Hostel Accommodation, Birmingham

Mr. Yates: asked the Minister of Health what reply he has received to the representations which, in May, 1950, he undertook to make to the Birmingham City Council regarding the provision of hostel accommodation for homeless families in Birmingham.

Mr. Marquand: The City Council were asked to consider the possibility of providing a hostel for men in employment but without homes. They have arranged to reserve 10 beds nightly in a hostel they provide under the National Assistance Act for men found by the police to be in urgent need of accommodation.

Mr. Yates: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in connection with the particular hostel about which I communicated with his predecessor, in May, 1950, there have been nearly 300 cases submitted by the police, and that between 10 and 15 are men being turned away every night? In view of the circumstances, will my right hon. Friend go into the matter again, because 10 beds are totally inadequate to meet the situation in Birmingham?

Mr. Marquand: The information I have is that, on the average, only two of the 10 beds have been taken up per night, and that the maximum number used is six.

Mr. Shurmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the number of evictions taking place in Birmingham is greater than the estate department can cope with? In my own constituency there are a number of people who sleep out at night—families.

Mr. Marquand: The Question does not refer to evictions.

Mr. Yates: May I ask my right hon. Friend again, in view of the fact that only today I have been informed that 10 to 15 men are being turned away from the shelter every night, if he will go into the matter again?

Mr. Marquand: Yes, certainly. If there is a conflict of information of that kind it deserves examination and I will give it.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEATH, URMSTON

Mr. Storey: asked the Minister of Health if he will now make his promised statement upon the circumstances preceding the death of Charles Walter, who was found dying outside a lonely hut in Urmston Meadows, to which he had been returned after being refused admission to Park Hospital, Davyhulme, because he was not sufficiently ill, and to a welfare hostel at Ancoats, because he was too ill to be admitted there.

Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. I have sent the hon. Member a detailed reply; but I should like to say here that full inquiry has established that the failure in this case was due to an error of judgment in not admitting this man to hospital, and not to any lack of liaison between the health and welfare services. I am satisfied that the regional hospital board concerned has taken the steps necessary to prevent any repetition of the occurrence.

Mr. Storey: Is the Minister aware that diagnosis in this case was made in the open air and in the ambulance? Will he see that such a thing does not happen again?

Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. I am glad to say arrangements have been made to set aside special beds for this type of patient and that instructions have been given that when they are to be admitted to hospital, or sent to another hospital, accommodation must be certain to be there before the patient is sent away.

Mr. James Hudson: Were any disciplinary measures included in the steps which were necessary to be taken in this case?

Mr. Marquand: I believe that certain observations were made by the regional hospital board.

Mr. Ellis Smith: That is good as far as it goes, but have these instructions been issued to apply throughout the country?

Mr. Marquand: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. Assheton: Would the Minister tell us if it is the case that of no hospital in the country can it be said that there is no emergency bed available if necessary?

Mr. Marquand: I think that the real issue in this case was an error of judgment on the part of the two doctors concerned. It does not necessarily follow that similar errors are made in other parts of the country.

Mr. Storey: Although the Minister attributes what happened to a mistake in diagnosis does he not think that in every area there might be somebody who could say whether a man should go into a National Health Service hospital or should be treated in a Public Assistance hospital?

Oral Answers to Questions — RETAIL PRICE INDEX

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Labour what weight of fish, what kind, and at what price was included in the last computation of the cost-of-living index.

Major Lloyd: asked the Minister of Labour what quality, quantity, kind and price of meat and meat products were included in the monthly cost-of-living indices for January and July in each of the last five years.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I would refer the hon. Members of the explanatory booklet, "Interim Index of Retail Prices: Method of Construction and Calculation." This booklet gives a complete list of the kinds and qualities of food and food products included in the index, together with an explanation of the way in which the index is computed.

Mr. Osborne: The Minister refers me to a document, but does he remember that when this Question was put down to him about a fortnight ago, and I put a supplementary asking for that information, he said he did not know?

Mr. Bevan: I was quite right. I did not know.

Major Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although the statement to which he has referred does show certain differences between some categories of food it makes no attempt whatever to analyse the meat position? My question is confined entirely to the matter of the quality, quantity, kind and price of meat and meat products, about which the statement has nothing to say whatever.

Mr. Bevan: If he examines the booklet the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see that the information is exhaustive.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Census Information

Mr. Summers: asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements he proposes to make to collect relevant information concerning those of military age who have not hitherto undertaken military service, for possible use in the future; and whether he will consider using the information obtained in the forthcoming census for this purpose.

Mr. Bevan: None at this stage. With regard to the last part of the Question, information supplied for the census is treated as confidential, and could not be used for this purpose.

Mr. Summers: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there are many Z reservists and others who regard themselves as marked men, and that they want the information asked for in this Question? They do not see how they can avoid having alone to bear such sacrifices as are called for in the call-up. Will the right hon. Gentleman take further steps to obtain the information so as to clarify the matter?

Mr. Bevan: It is very difficult to see how this information can be collected, and I am not prepared to violate the census for the purpose.

Mr. Summers: If this information was obtainable during the early days of the war, could it not be obtained now, if necessary?

Inland Waterway Workers

Mr. Fort: asked the Minister of Labour whether exemption from military service will be granted to those working on the inland waterways of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir.

Mr. Fort: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply is likely to cause concern to the nationalised British water services, who have recently been advertising for male clerks who are exempt from military service?

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is, I think, under a misapprehension. No class of citizens is exempt. Some classes are deferred. We are now considering the broad classes of citizens who may be deferred in an emergency, but we shall not be able to give particular information because that will assist a potential enemy.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Railway Wage Negotiations

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the recent railway wage negotiations.

Mr. Bevan: I have nothing to add to what I have already said on this matter.

Mr. Osborne: May I ask the Minister two questions? Will he tell us if any pressure was exerted by the Government on the Railway Executive to pay higher wages than were awarded by the independent tribunal? Second, what is the good of having an independent tribunal if no notice is taken of its recommendations?

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. It was not a tribunal. It was a report of an inquiry, and, therefore, did not have the status of an arbitration award. As for the discussions between the Ministry of Labour and both sides of the industry, they were quite confidential, and I do not propose to say what was said.

Elderly Persons

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Labour if, in future discussions with the National Joint Advisory Council, he will recommend that all firms employing clerical labour should allow persons wishing to continue therein after reaching retirement age to do so, thereby releasing younger people for more strenuous work.

Mr. Bevan: The National Joint Advisory Council has already endorsed, in principle, the Government's policy of retaining in employment older persons, including clerical labour, able and willing to continue serve.

Miss Burton: In thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask him if he is aware that a good many women have written to me from Coventry expressing regret that they have to give up their work at 60 years of age when they would like to stay on, and so help the country at this difficult time?

Mr. Bevan: I admit that there are a number of people in that position but, of course, there has not yet been time for the decision to work its way through from the national authorities to individual industries.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: Would the right hon. Gentleman consult with the Minister of Pensions with a view to paying full pensions, instead of reducing the rates to those carrying out work?

Mr. Bevan: That is another question.

Overseas Nurses

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Labour approximately the number and percentage of nurses and those being trained in hospitals who were recruited from Eire, the Continent, Asia and Africa; and what steps are being taken to secure further overseas entrants.

Mr. Bevan: It is not possible to say how many nurses recruited from overseas are at present employed or in training in hospitals. In 1950 about 600 women including about 350 student nurses, were recruited under official schemes in Germany, Persia, Italy and the Colonies, while 564 men and women were transferred from the Irish Republic. In addition, over 900 individual permits were issued for aliens to take up nursing employment or training in this country. These arrangements are continuing.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that there is no means of discovering exactly the proportion of nurses now coming from overseas? Is not it desirable to get that figure?

Mr. Bevan: I have already given a number of figures of those from overseas who have been employed under official schemes.

German Workers

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Labour how many German girls and women have been recruited for work in this country under the North Sea scheme; approximately how many of these are respectively farm workers, nurses and factory workers; what are their terms of contract; under what circumstances they can transfer to other employment; and whether they will now be given permission to transfer from one area to another.

Mr. Bevan: Under this scheme 6,400 women were recruited for domestic work in hospitals, institutions or private households; 1,600 for nursing; and 1,600 for hosiery, textile and other industries—a total of 9,600. They undertook to enter specified employment and not to leave it without the consent of my Department. Applications for transfer from one employment to another, or from one area to another, are considered in the light of individual circumstances.

Mr. Sorensen: Does this scheme mean that they can come here for a set period, such as two years, and, if so, is it possible, when the two years are finished for those who have been recruited to have a certain amount of facility to move into some other industry in some other part of the country?

Mr. Bevan: I think my hon. Friend will find that if they have been in this specified employment for two years it is much easier to get transferred, but it is not, of course, always automatic.

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN SITE (M.P.s' VISITS)

Mr. W. G. Bennett: asked the Prime Minister when and by whose authority Members of Parliament are no longer permitted to visit the Festival of Britain site.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Stokes): I have been asked to reply. Although the number of visitors to the South Bank is having to be cut down owing to the advanced stage of the work, and the delay in progress to which large numbers of visitors give rise, I can assure the hon. Member that no ban has been or will be put on visits by Members of Parliament.

Mr. J. N. Browne: Is the Minister aware that the hon. Member for Govan visited the site on Sunday, complete with wife and dog, and said he was a Member of Parliament, and was refused admission?

Mr. Stokes: That may be quite right, but I was replying about visits by Members. It is obviously impossible to agree that parties consisting of others than hon. Members should be admitted indiscriminately.

Mr. Bennett: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this week a party of hon. Members were informed by the director that the invitations to Members have been cancelled? Would he inquire into that?

Mr. Stokes: I will certainly inquire into it, but I am informed that as recently as 13th March a party of hon. Members was, in fact, conducted round the whole of the South Bank Exhibition site.

Mr. Harrison: Can my right hon. Friend say what advantage would accrue by depriving ordinary members of the

public of this privilege, if it is right to permit visits by Members of Parliament?

Mr. Stokes: The question does arise whether or not anybody should be excluded, but it is obviously impossible, when work is going on under pressure, to let everybody in, because, as anyone who has had anything to do with this problem knows, visitors do interrupt work. It is quite impossible to give an unlimited licence to everybody to visit the site.

Mr. David Renton: Regarding the undertaking of the right hon. Gentleman that there is no embargo upon hon. Members visiting the Festival of Britain Site, can he give us a similar undertaking that there will be no future embargo upon hon. Members visiting this Chamber?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Veterinary Staff

Colonel Ropner: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the shortage of veterinary surgeons, he is taking any steps to increase his Department's veterinary surgeon staff.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): Yes, Sir. A competition for the recruitment of veterinary officers was held last summer, another is in progress, and the Ministry of Labour has been asked to submit names for temporary appointments.

Colonel Ropner: I apologise to the Minister for not being able to hear his reply, but did he say that he is satisfied that the number of veterinary surgeons will be adequately increased in the near future?

Mr. Williams: No, Sir. Unfortunately, the number of candidates is insufficient to meet the vacancies. I am hoping that we shall be able to get more veterinary surgeons.

Mr. Drayson: Is the Minister satisfied that the remuneration which his Department is paying to veterinary surgeons is equivalent to what they can get in private practice? Will he look into the question of their pay?

Mr. Williams: That is not the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Vane: Is the Minister satisfied that the capacity of the Royal Veterinary College is sufficient to maintain the present number?

Mr. Williams: As the hon. Member may be aware there is now a veterinary section at Bristol University, and also one at Cambridge, and I hope that fairly quickly we shall have sufficient veterinary surgeons to meet our needs.

Training Area, Salisbury Plain

Mr. John Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture the result of his consultations with the War Department and the Ministry of Supply in regard to the representations made to him by the Wiltshire Agricultural Executive Committee, National Farmers' Union and farmers concerned in regard to agricultural production and tank training in the Salisbury Plain area.

Mr. T. Williams: I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a clear lead to the farmers concerned about this year's cultivation? Will he also remember that the only real solution is that the Ministry of Supply bombing range, at present sterilising a great part of the tank training area, should be removed to allow tanks to train on the area?

Mr. Williams: I believe that a conference representing all the interests, including those of my Department, is being convened to discuss the whole problem.

Mr. R. V. Grimston: When does the right hon. Gentleman think he will be able to report on this matter? Does he realise that as recently as January farmers were being encouraged to work on this land, whereas it was known in the War Department in October that it would be required for tank use?

Mr. Williams: I hope that the conference to which I have referred will be taking place fairly shortly.

Fowl Pest

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, as there have been 254 outbreaks of fowl pest in England and Wales and four in Scotland during

the month of January alone, he yet has any proposals to overcome this problem.

Mr. T. Williams: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) on 2nd March. It would seem that the steps that have been and are being taken by my Department to deal with the disease are producing encouraging results. The number of outbreaks during February fell to 156, of which 128 were in England and Wales, and there were only 11 outbreaks in the first 11 days of March.

Mr. Bossom: While thanking the Minister for the good work he is doing, may I ask if he will look into the question of the importation of fowls from fowl pest infected countries, which is concluded to be the main cause of this trouble?

Mr. Williams: I can assure the hon. Member that that is under very anxious consideration.

Sugar Beet (Disposal)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the desire among farmers in the South of England that there should be a sugar beet factory in this part of the country to avoid having to send their crops long distances to factories which are already fully occupied; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with this matter.

Mr. T. Williams: Yes, Sir, but there are other projects, including extensive renovation and improvement of the existing sugar beet factories, which have prior claims on the limited building and other resources available.

Mr. Bossom: Has not the National Farmers' Union requested the Minister on many occasions over several years to look into this, and would he look into it, having so far refused to do so, as such a factory would have been of great service in the South of England?

Mr. Williams: Perhaps another sugar beet factory is desirable, but to reach the conclusion that another factory has to be built many other factors have to be taken into consideration.

Mr. Vane: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that work on a new factory should be given priority over work at Carlton House Terrace?

Earl Winterton: Is the Minister aware that for the last 20 years my constituents have been pressing for a sugar beet factory in the South? Surely it is about time that he made up his mind.

Mr. Williams: The noble' Lord will be aware that for 14½ of those 20 years his party were in office.

Major Legge-Bourke: Arising out of the Minister's reply, in which he said that various extensions were to be made to existing factories, will he give an assurance that these extensions will be adequate to deal with the increased production of sugar beet in East Anglia and at the same time cater for sugar beet growing in the South of England?

Mr. Williams: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware that during the past season the output of beet factories has been 20 per cent. larger than ever before.

Horses (Export)

Lieut.-Colonel Lockwood: asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of live horses exported from this country to Northern Ireland during the last 12 months, giving the monthly figures for that period.

Mr. T. Williams: As the reply involves a tabular statement I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:


Period
Number of horses sent to Northern Ireland


1950
Number


March
…
…
…
12


April
…
…
…
2


May
…
…
…
15


June
…
…
…
10


July
…
…
…
18


August
…
…
…
7


September
…
…
…
15


October
…
…
…
9


November
…
…
…
10


December
…
…
…
8


1951



January
…
…
…
4


February
…
…
…
0






110

These figures exclude horses sent into Northern Ireland solely for shows and with circuses, as these horses eventually return to their country of origin.

Broccoli, Cornwall

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Agriculture the acreages of broccoli grown in Cornwall in the seasons 1938–39, 1948–49, 1949–50 and 1950–51, respectively.

Mr. T. Williams: As the reply includes a table of figures I propose, with my hon. Friend's agreement, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:


ACREAGE OF BROCCOLI (HEADING) OR WINTER CAULIFLOWER IN CORNWALL AS RETURNED AT JUNE AND SEPTEMBER OF THE YEARS NAMED


Year
June
September






acres
acres


1938
…
…
…
3,635
—


1948
…
…
…
3,265
8,079


1949
…
…
…
2,258
6,417


1950
…
…
…
2,997
6,689

Note.—Figures are given for June as well as September since no information at the latter date is available for 1938. The trend from year to year is more accurately indicated by the September return.

Potatoes, Cornwall

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Agriculture the acreages of early potatoes grown in Cornwall in 1939, 1948. 1949 and 1950, respectively.

Mr. T. Williams: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hayman: Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to encourage the marketing scheme which started so well in Cornwall last year?

Mr. Williams: We are always willing to encourage sensible marketing schemes.

Following is the statement:


ACREAGE OF FIRST EARLY POTATOES IN CORNWALL AS RETURNED IN JUNE OF THE YEARS NAMED


Years



Acreage


1939
…
…
…
1,140


1948
…
…
…
16,220


1949
…
…
…
16,380


1950
…
…
…
9,615

Production Costs

Mr. Lambert: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give an estimate of the total costs of production incurred


by farmers for the years ended 1945 to 1950 inclusive, or to the latest convenient date.

Mr. T. Williams: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Figures for calendar years are not available but approximate farm expenditure in the United Kingdom for years ending 31st May was as follows:






£ Million


1945–46
…
…
…
437


1946–47
…
…
…
466


1947–48
…
…
…
520


1948–49
…
…
…
570


1949–50
…
…
…
649


1950–51 (forecast)
…
…
…
730

Produce Associations

Mr. Digby: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give the names of the county produce associations which have indicated that it is not their intention to merge with National Allotments and Gardens Society.

Mr. T. Williams: The following county garden produce committees have informed me that they are not supporting the merger of village produce associations and the reconstituted National Allotments and Gardens Society: Dorset, Kent, North Northants and Rutland, Northumberland, Nottingham, Oxford, Somerset, Staffordshire, East Sussex, Derby and Worcester.

Mr. Digby: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that 24 associations have now given notification that they are not willing to join, whereas only a short time ago the Minister gave me a list containing only eight?

Mr. Williams: If only 24 have given notification that they are not going to play a part, presumably 38 of them are.

Oral Answers to Questions — CARLTON HOUSE TERRACE

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will make a statement concerning the consultations which have led the Commissioners of Crown Lands to the conclusion that Carlton House Terrace is not suitable for embassies, clubs, flats or hotels.

Mr. T. Williams: The future of these buildings has on many occasions been the subject of consideration and consultation between the Departments concerned. The only formal consultation on user was with the Crown Lands Advisory Committee in 1933. That Committee recommended residential user, which included embassies and clubs of good standing. They stated that, while they would reject blocks of flats on redevelopment and would rigidly exclude hotels, they would not object to the conversion of any existing house into flats. The Commissioners considered several schemes for conversion into flats, but none of these schemes was approved and the Commissioners were professionally advised that the satisfactory conversion of these houses into flats must be considered impracticable.
The Commissioners have not regarded the houses as unsuitable for embassies or clubs, and some of them were, in fact, let for those purposes before the war; but for other houses, lessees for embassy or club use were not forthcoming, and the Commissioners reached the conclusion that there was no prospect of letting all the houses for those uses.

Mr. Hollis: Is the Minister aware that while there will be a good deal of sympathy with him for being in the peculiar position of having to answer for Carlton House Terrace—I am not sure whether he does so in his capacity as Minister of Agriculture or Minister of Fisheries—nevertheless, the serious point is that his statement seems to be in very great contradiction to the statement made the other day in another place by a Government spokesman? Surely we should know where we stand.

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman will bring to my notice any contradiction between my statement and that made in another place, I will be glad to look at it, but I rather doubt if that is so.

Mr. Bossom: Does this mean that the Government are abandoning the assurance given by the Pick Committee, a few years ago, that no change would be made in the general character of Carlton House Terrace before approximately 1960 or 1962—I cannot recall which was the date?

Mr. Williams: It would perhaps be better if that question were put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Purchase Tax

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will set up a committee of experts to inquire into the effect of Purchase Tax on production, design, craftsmanship and special skills and marketing;
(2) provide machinery to enable trades suffering special hardship by reason of the application of the highest rates of tax or other cause to claim exemption or partial relief.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): No, Sir. The trade keep the Treasury and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise fully informed on all aspects of Purchase Tax, and I can see no advantage in setting up formal machinery for consultation and inquiry.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that the restrictions imposed by a Socialist Government on production, by Purchase Tax, are ruining one of the best assets of our export trade, namely, quality? When the Government are appealing for exports to be increased, why does he not do all he can to remove as many controls as possible, so that traders may be free to trade abroad?

Mr. Jay: This is the job of Customs and Excise. We do not want to set up a lot more committees to do work which is already being done.

Mr. Harrison: Can my hon. Friend say which section of the export trade is subject to the Purchase Tax?

Mr. Jay: No exports are subject to Purchase Tax.

Industrial Civil Servants (Paid Leave)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what decision he has reached on the application by industrial civil servants for two weeks' annual leave with pay;
(2) whether he will make a statement about the application by industrial civil servants of an extra week's leave with Pay.

Mr. Jay: On 27th July, 1950, the trade union side of the Joint Co-ordinating Committee for Government Industrial Establishments tabled a claim for an extra

week's paid leave for all Government industrial employees in 1951 and asked for the opportunity to discuss this with my right hon. Friend's predecessor personally. He was prevented by illness from doing so, but my right hon. Friend received a deputation on 6th December. The Government had previously accepted the claim in principle, and had said that it was among the things to be done when our economic position had sufficiently improved. After considering all the arguments my right hon. Friend has come to the conclusion that the economic situation in relation to the demands now being made on our resources has not yet improved enough to justify the considerable loss of production which this extra week's holiday would involve, and he has therefore told the trade union side that he cannot yet approve it.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does that mean that the scheme is still accepted in principle and that it is only a question of selecting a suitable time for putting it into effect?

Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir. It is still accepted in principle, and we regard it as being high on the list of the things which we would like to do.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is it not the case that if this scheme were immediately put into operation the work during the additional week's holiday would have to be shared out among the existing staff as in the case of the first week, and no increased staff would be necessary?

Mr. Jay: I do not think it is quite as simple as that.

Mr. G. Cooper: Can my hon. Friend say why there is so much difference between the leave granted to non-industrial civil servants and that granted to industrial civil servants?

Mr. Osborne: While sympathising with the demand for an extra week's holiday with pay, would the Minister make it quite clear that if the same standard of living is to be maintained 51 weeks' work has to be done in 50 weeks?

Mr. Jay: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. G. Cooper), we must remember that the industrial staff are on a five-day week, whereas the majority of the non-industrial staff are not. The chief reason


for the distinction is historical and we have been steadily overcoming it in recent years.

Bonus Share Issues

Mr. Dodds: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many permits have been issued by the Capital Issues Committee for bonus issues over £50,000 since restrictions were lifted; and what is the total nominal value of shares so issued.

Mr. Jay: Since the ban was partially lifted in December, 1949, the number of bonus applications which has been approved by the Treasury to date is 141, involving a total nominal value of £53,549,000. It is not possible to give the nominal value of the shares actually issued.

Mr. Dodds: Is the Minister not aware of the widespread concern at the great activity in making bonus issues?

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Is it not quite wrong to class the majority of these issues as bonus issues, when they are, in fact, not bonus issues at all?

Mr. Jay: I am aware that there is concern about some of these issues, and that is why we have to maintain control.

Mr. Albu: Is it not a fact that following the issue of bonus shares there is an appreciation in the value of the shares on the Stock Exchange, and, therefore, there is a capital gain to the owners?

Mr. Jay: Very often that is true, but not always.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPIRITS (OFF-LICENCE SALES)

Mr. Baker White: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the rising cost of living, he will permit wine and spirit stores and other off-licences to sell single, quarter and miniature bottles of spirits, often bought for medicinal purposes, thus bringing them into line with restaurants, inns and railway restaurant cars.

Mr. Jay: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells) on 13th March.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Can the Minister say whether any loss of revenue would be involved if this suggestion were adopted?

Mr. Jay: Not without notice.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in view of the Treasury's efforts to ruin the Scotch whisky trade the miniature bottle of spirits is the only one that will be of the least use at the present time, owing to the shortage of supplies?

Mr. Erroll: Will the Minister bear in mind that spirits are becoming so expensive that miniature bottles of spirits are the only ones we can afford to buy?

Mr. Jay: Quite a number of points have been raised, and we will bear them all in mind.

Mr. A. Lewis: On a point of order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that for some considerable time a lady in the Strangers' Gallery has been using binoculars, or opera-glasses, which is against the Rules of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I will take notice of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (STERLING BALANCES AGREEMENT)

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement about his financial discussions with the Egyptian Government.

Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir. Last December, in accordance with the agreement made earlier in the year, my right hon. Friend began negotiations in London with the Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs for a long-term settlement of the problem of Egypt's sterling balances. These discussions have been continued more recently in Cairo between Treasury officials and the Egyptian Minister of Finance. I am glad to inform the House that agreement has now been reached in principle between our two Governments.
Out of Egypt's blocked balances amounting to approximately £230 million. £150 million will be released over a period of between 10 and 13½ years. The future of the balance of £80 million, the amount of sterling which Egypt would normally expect to hold in London, will be the subject of discussion between the two


Governments before the expiration of this period.
His Majesty's Government have reaffirmed that they have no intention of attempting to scale down Egypt's sterling balances unilaterally. In each of the 10 years 1951–60 inclusive, there will be a release of £10 million, Egypt having the right to draw a further £5 million per annum up to a total of £35 million, if the balance on her No. 1 Account should fall below £45 million. Should any part of the sum of £35 million remain undrawn at the end of the tenth year, it will be released to Egypt at the rate of £10 million per annum over the three years ending 1st January, 1963, with a final payment of £5 million on 1st July. 1963. if necessary.
In 1951 there will also be a special release of £14 million, against which we have undertaken to make dollars available, and an additional sterling release of £1 million. Finally, His Majesty's Government will undertake to facilitate the supply of petroleum products to Egypt against payment in sterling up to a total value of £11 million per annum in each of the ten years 1951–60.

Mr. Churchill: Can the Financial Secretary tell us, in a phrase, how much is the actual total we have to pay to Egypt for having protected her against the Nazi and Facist invasion, and whether this compensation in respect of petroleum is to be settled irrespective of the illegal blockade maintained by the Egyptian Government over oil cargoes going through the Suez Canal?

Mr. Jay: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, I think that he is under a misapprehension. This is not money which is being paid to Egypt. This is money in the ownership of Egypt which the British Government are releasing. In answer to the second part of his question, that has nothing to do with these negotiations, which were purely financial. That question should be addressed to the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Eden: Surely the Government will agree that it is impossible to divorce the granting of these very important facilities to Egypt and the manner in which Egypt has been treating our traffic going through the Suez Canal for some years at great personal expense to ourselves? Surely before the Government give any more

concessions, or any concession, to this Egyptian Government that treats us in this way and holds up all our traffic, with a loss to the Haifa refineries——

Mr. Manuel: That's right—another war.

Mr. Eden: Is it war to ask for a fair deal for British interests? If that is the basis on which the hon. Member proceeds, perhaps he will explain to the Israeli Government why the Haifa refineries cannot work today. Can we have an explanation of why our own rights were not insisted on before these concessions were made?

Mr. Jay: This is not a matter of concession.

Mr. Eden: Of course it is.

Mr. Jay: This is a matter of agreement. If the right hon. Gentleman likes the word "concession," then this is an agreement in which concessions were made by both sides; but it is a financial agreement and does not concern the question put by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Eden: Will the Foreign Secretary or the Leader of the House tell us when there has ever been a financial agreement between two governments which has had no political implications; and when this country has strong claims against Egypt that have cost us millions—the treatment of our traffic through the Canal—cannot we make that a sine qua nonbefore we give them any financial facilities at all? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] May I ask for an answer? I think that what I am putting is a reasonable question. We are giving facilities to the Egyptian Government in respect of these financial arrangements, when for more than a year Egypt has been treating us very roughly in respect of the Suez Canal. Is it not reasonable to ask that, before the House is requested to approve this arrangement, we should know why Egypt has not been required to treat us better?

Mr. Jay: I have already given the right hon. Gentleman what I thought was a reasonable answer. If he wishes to pursue the matter further, I think that he really must put down a Question to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Churchill: How does the Financial Secretary contend that this is Egyptian money? It is money which they claim on sterling balances and takes the form of unrequited exports from this country.

Mr. Jay: These balances are the property of the Egyptian Government and the Egyptian authorities.

Mr. Speaker: Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre.

Mr. Churchill: rose——[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman takes up a lot of time.

Mr. Churchill: I could not see that my hon. and gallant Friend behind me was seeking to put a question. May I ask whether these sterling balances were not always, in accordance with the policy of the National Coalition Government, to be subject to off-sets made against them by claims for having defended the freedom and safety of that country during the period of the war?

Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir, those claims were made by the Government in 1947; but unfortunately agreement on that point could not be reached with the Egyptian Government.

Mr. Churchill: You gave in.

Mr. Eden: The Financial Secretary has made it plain that part of this arrangement is that Egypt is to buy oil, presumably from some source over which we have control. How can an arrangement be made that Egypt shall be supplied with oil from our sources when Egypt refuses to allow our own traffic to go through the Suez Canal? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I really must have an answer.

Mr. Jay: That is purely financial.

Mr. Eden: How can the Government say that it is purely financial? It could not be more political.

Mr. Jay: The purchases of British oil that Egypt is making is surely a financial question. There has been a similar arrangement made in agreement with Egypt over the last three years.

Sir Richard Acland: Will my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend bear in mind that this question of the Suez Canal is causing some feeling on this side of the House, too?

Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir, I am very well aware of that.

Mr. Eden: Can we have an assurance that this will not be regarded as a binding arrangement until this House has had a chance to look at it?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Herbert Morrison): These Supplementaries began with a characteristically provocative one by the Leader of the Opposition, calculated to make mischief between us and a foreign country. Unfortunately, there seems to be some competition between the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this respect. This is an agreement which has been made, and if these other questions are to arise they had best be put upon the Paper.

Mr. Eden: The last request I made to the right hon. Gentleman was, I think, a perfectly reasonable one. I only asked the Government for an assurance that this arrangement with political implications will not be put into force without the House having an opportunity of examining it. I repeat—[Interruption.]Please let me put it myself. This is a matter to which I attach the very greatest international importance. There is an issue at stake, and I am asking the Government whether they will give us a simple assurance that before this agreement is put into force, which I repeat has grave political implications, they will enable the House to pronounce upon it. I beg the Leader of the House and the Foreign Secretary to remember that such an assurance has been given in the past scores of times by Leaders of the House and Foreign Secretaries.

Mr. Morrison: As to that I will look into the matter, but I am not in a position to give an undertaking of that character straight off.

Mr. Eden: This has been done a number of times. Again, I must ask the right hon. Gentleman simply to say that by tomorrow an announcement will be made. This is a matter which we should not allow to pass now, because this is an agreement with a foreign country with implications for us all. We had no notice that this was going to be raised, and we did not know about it until a few minutes ago. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement on this subject


tomorrow, and that, pending that, this agreement will not be regarded as ratified or the House in any way committed. I do not think I am asking too much.

Mr. Morrison: I will look into the matter but I cannot—[Interruption.]I am not going to be ordered about by the Opposition. At the end of the day, Ministers are responsible to Parliament as a whole, and I am not going to be bullied and nagged by some hon. Members opposite. I will look into this point and the precedents and give them fair consideration. There are some aspects of the supplementaries on which the Government are already doing their best but when an agreement has been reached, I should not be expected forthwith to get up and say that the agreement is not going to be implemented until so and so. My hon. Friends have asked about that in connection with other matters, and the Leader of the Opposition has always supported the view that the Government have a right to make treaties and agreements and the House a right to upset them afterwards. I do not want to commit myself to the rather novel doctrine of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition at this stage, at any rate until I have looked into it. I am sorry I cannot make a statement tomorrow, because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I must leave for Paris tonight in connection with the Council of Europe, which I know hon. Members would not like me to miss.

Mr. Eden: Would the Government deal with it in this way? There is no need for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement, but could we have a statement from some one on the Treasury Bench? It is important that we should not be committed to this thing. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us if a statement can be made by somebody from the Government tomorrow about this agreement with all its political implications. If we could have that it would be satisfactory, but, of course, we would hold ourselves free to debate the matter next week if we are not satisfied with the statement.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I will consult with my right hon. Friend and I will let the right hon. Gentleman know whether a statement can, in fact, be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUBAN SUGAR (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: (by Private Notice)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make a statement about a proposed bilateral agreement on sugar supplies between the United Kingdom and Cuba.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): Yes, Sir. Following upon an approach made by the Cuban Government, last summer, there have been discussions with the Cuban Delegation which is taking part in the talks at Torquay under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Until the discussions reach a conclusion, I am not in a position to give any details except to say that, as one would expect, purchases of sugar are included in the subject matter of the talks. Cuba is, of course, an important source of sugar supplies for this country. I can say, however, that nothing will be concluded with Cuba which would prejudice the agreements reached last year with Commonwealth producers.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is it not a fact that on a matter of vital concern to Australia and to the British sugar Colonies, no notice of any kind was given either to the Australian representatives at Torquay or to the Australian Government that these bilateral proposals were intended?

Mr. Wilson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations had a discussion with representatives of the Australian Government. This matter is very difficult and very embarrassing for a number of Commonwealth countries, and I suggest that it would be better to leave it until the discussions are completed.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: When did the talks take place between the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Australian Government?

Mr. Wilson: It was in the course of the last few days, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact days.

Mr. Peter Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies about the consequences which may follow if the Canadian Government were to follow the example of His


Majesty's Government in opening negotiations of this sort, and were to conclude a barter agreement of this sort with Cuba to the detriment of our West Indian Colonies?

Mr. Wilson: I am in the fullest consultation with my right hon. Friend. What Canada may or may not do in this matter is not raised in the Question put to me by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Yes, Sir.

The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 19TH MARCH—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Training) Bill, which are expected to be received from another place.

Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill—Debate on Civil Aviation.

TUESDAY, 20TH MARCH—It is proposed to take the Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill formally.

A Debate on a Motion to be tabled by the Opposition dealing with the Yorkshire Electricity Board and Building Regulations until 7 p.m.

Afterwards a Debate on the Opposition's Motion relating to the Nomination of Standing Committees.

Consideration of Representation of the People (Redistribution of Seats) (Scotland) Orders; and Purchase Tax (No. 3) Order (Domestic Appliances and Apparatus)

WEDNESDAY, 21ST MARCH—Debate on the Work of the Council of Wales and Monmouthshire, until 7 p.m.

Afterwards, the Government will afford an opportunity to debate the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) relating to Privilege.

THURSDAY, 22ND MARCH—It is proposed to meet at 11 a.m. and Questions will be taken until 12 noon.

Adjournment for the Easter Recess until Tuesday, 3rd April.

During the week we shall ask the House to consider any Amendments to Bills which may be received from another place, and take the Second Reading of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, which is usually a formal stage.

Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that there has been a good deal of discussion about the day when we could have a debate on the question of a Supreme Commander of the Atlantic. Several times the Opposition and my right hon. Friend have put off this matter to enable the Government to prepare a White Paper. As I understand it, the White Paper will not be ready until after Easter, and if this is the position my right hon. Friend and my colleagues are prepared, in order to meet that situation, to postpone the discussion until after Easter. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to understand that this is to meet the situation about the White Paper, but we would have preferred to have the discussion a good deal earlier.

Mr. Ede: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I understand the position that he has taken up and I shall see that we have the White Paper as soon as the whole subject can be covered.

Mr. George Thomas: On the Business for Wednesday, may I ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of the importance of the debate for the first half of the day and the limited time available to discuss the important topic of the Council for Wales, he will make approaches through the usual channels for Front Bench speakers on both sides of the House to impose on themselves a self-denying ordinance so as to allow back benchers to put their points of view?

Mr. Ede: I do not know how much my hon. Friend expects them to deny themselves, but I am quite sure that there would be a desire that some statement should at any rate be made by the Government with regard to their attitude towards what takes place in that discussion. I shall convey to any hon. or right hon. Friend of mine who is selected from the Front Bench to speak on the


matter the views which have been expressed by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the fact that the Business announced for between now and Easter does not include the Supplies and Services (Defence Purposes) Bill, the Second Reading of which was taken three weeks ago and was then said to be of so urgent a nature as to require all the remaining stages to be taken on one day, indicate that the Government have had second thoughts on this matter?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. We are trying to meet the convenience of the House.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Leader of the House indicate as soon as possible after Easter that he will provide facilities for the remaining stages of the Matrimonial Causes Bill, which was decisively accepted by the House last Friday?

Mr. Ede: That Bill is going through the usual process which applies to Bills introduced by Private Members.

Mr. Churchill: I understand from what has been said earlier this afternoon that the Leader of the House is going to make a statement on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, or that the Foreign Secretary will make a statement, this afternoon on the question of the agreement which, we have heard today, has been made with Egypt. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Did I not understand that to be so? If I am wrong, perhaps the Leader of the House will interrupt me now.

Mr. Ede: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the invitation. What I said was that I would consult with my right hon. Friend, and that, if it appeared necessary and desirable, a statement would be made tomorrow. My right hon. Friend has to go to Paris tonight in connection with the country's business, and therefore it will not be possible for him to make any statement.

Mr. Churchill: May I give notice that, in the event of this statement being what we judge of an unsatisfactory character, we may have to ask for a re-arrangement of the Business on Monday or Tuesday, and that that will be discussed through the usual channels in order to permit us to discuss this Egyptian issue?

Mr. Ede: I do not think that there will be any difficulty about that. If the Opposition intimate—it is their time—that they would like to debate an issue other than those which they had put down before the business became public, we shall be perfectly prepared to discuss it.

Mr. Maclay: Will the White Paper on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation cover only the defence committee, or the structure of the other parallel committees of the organisation?

Mr. Ede: All these points were dealt with last week when the present Foreign Secretary answered, and I have nothing to add to what he said.

Mr. Snow: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether time should be given on some occasion to discuss the Motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister), the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) and four other Members from both sides of the House, requesting consideration of the amendment of the United Nations Charter in order to secure world government, a matter which secured the sympathy of that cheerful soul his predecessor?

Mr. Ede: I cannot say at the moment that I shall be able to find time for it.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: When will the remaining stages of the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Bill, be taken?

Mr. Ede: Not before Easter.

Earl Winterton: May I ask a question on what I would call procedural elucidation regarding the Motion which is to be discussed in the name of the hon. Member who raised the question of Privilege? Presumably time is not being given for this Motion in accordance with the ancient custom of the House that it is a Vote of Censure upon Mr. Speaker, because it is not in fact so. Presumably time is being given because it is the general feeling of the House that in these special circumstances there should be a debate on this Motion.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in a perfectly friendly way, whether it would not be advisable to make it clear that this Motion should not be regarded as a precedent? Otherwise, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Privileges and


the House will be placed in a somewhat embarrassing position. Every day breaches of Privilege are committed, as the Committee of Privileges reported last year. Indeed, at this very moment there are preparations for a breach of Privilege in progress in a certain part of this House.
It would be open to any hon. Member—I suggest to the House that this is a serious point—each day to rise and call Mr. Speaker's attention to the fact that there has been a breach of Privilege, and if Mr. Speaker said that he was not prepared to rule that there was a prima faciecase then, if this instance is to be taken as a precedent, the hon. Member could, notwithstanding Mr. Speaker's Ruling, put a Motion down that the matter should go to the Committee of Privileges, and the whole business of the House could be held up. If it is held up in this Parliament I shall be very glad, but I was thinking of what might happen in a future Parliament. Would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that this is not a precedent because it is sui generisin the present Parliament?

Sir Waldron Smithers: May I ask your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a similar point? The Motion down in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and about 60 other Members asks that the matter concerning the conduct of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Rodgers) should be sent to the Committee of Privileges. May I ask how it is possible for this to be done—and I have an Amendment down on this point—when you have ruled that there is no prima faciecase? I suggest that the Motion is out of order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The House of Commons has complete power. Whatever I rule, the House can reverse it. It is its right. I have a quotation for a precedent, although I have not got it in my head, from Mr. Disraeli, which assured hon. Members that they had complete power in these matters if they chose to exercise it. If they do so, it is their complete right.

Mr. Ede: When the noble Lord says that he is going to ask somebody something in a perfectly friendly way, I begin to scent trouble. The answer to his question is that the Government do not regard this Motion as in any way a reflection on Mr. Speaker. All that Mr. Speaker ruled was with regard to this Motion

having priority. It was evident when the questions were being asked the other day in the House that there was a general desire by a large body of Members that the matter should be debated. The Government thought it right in those circumstances that a limited amount of time should be placed at the disposal of the hon. Member so that he could raise the issue.

Mr. Churchill: Is this Motion not a Motion to reverse the decision—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—as far as English can be plain, which you, Mr. Speaker, announced to the House, that after full consideration you declared that there was no prima faciecase for Privilege? If so, though no doubt it has no personal reflection upon yourself, the Motion does, undoubtedly, upset the Ruling which you have given on a matter of Privilege.

Mr. Ede: That is not the view that is taken, and there are several precedents for this course being followed. The issue that was decided by Mr. Speaker's Ruling was that the matter could not be given priority at the commencement of public business. May I say that it does not appear to me that we should spend time now in discussing matters that might very well arise on points of order—if they are still held—when the question comes to be discussed next Wednesday?

Mr. Churchill: In order to help the Leader of the House and his colleagues to do their duty in supporting the Chair, may I inform him that it is our intention on this side of the House to oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne?

Mr. S. N. Evans: Further to the Ruling which you gave, Mr. Speaker, on the point raised by the noble Lord——

Earl Winterton: I did not raise a point of order. I asked a question.

Mr. S. N. Evans: Further to the guidance which you gave to the House, Mr. Speaker, following the contribution by the noble Lord, may I now ask, having full regard to the fact that, as you rightly say, the House of Commons can do as it likes, whether we should not also have full regard to the fact that, unless the House of Commons is willing to concede to Mr. Speaker a high degree of infallibility, the business of this House could not be carried on?

Mr. Speaker: I have made it clear that the House has a perfect right to do what it thinks best. The Speaker is human, and not necessarily infallible. He merely does his best. I have said that the House has its complete rights over matters of this kind. I really think, if I may say so, that instead of discussing this matter now, we had better wait for the debate on Wednesday evening, because this is only confusing matters and causing delay. I would suggest that we debate the matter on Wednesday evening and not now.

Mr. John Hynd: Arising from what was said by the Leader of the Opposition, I should like to ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman has declared that the Opposition as a body are opposing the Motion involving a matter of Parliamentary Privilege. Am I to understand that, in view of the fact that that was allowed to go without comment from the Chair, in future, matters of Parliamentary Privilege are matters which may be dealt with as party matters if they serve a political purpose?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point for me at all.

Professor Savory: I want to ask a question with regard to public business. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the promise given last week by his colleague to a most friendly question from myself that very shortly, the Bill of Indemnity for the former hon. Member for Belfast, West (Rev. J. G. MacManaway), will be brought in——

Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman will find that, when we pass from this question, the Bill will be introduced.

Lord Dunglass: May I bring the House back to the question of the White Paper on the North Atlantic Treaty organisation? My recollection is not the same as that of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that we have been given any clear indication of what it is to' contain. This is an immensely complicated organisation, and it is very important that it should be understood, not only in this House but in the country and in Europe, so that people can see that it is an effective organisation. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore, see that a full account of all the committees—military, supply and economic, the whole organisation—is included in the White Paper,

or alternatively, will he produce another one later on the same lines?

Mr. Ede: We intend to make the White Paper as full and informative as we can, consistent with our desire that people should be able to read the whole of it.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask a question on business? In view of the fact that it has been found possible to have questions on the morning of Thursday next, will my right hon. Friend give consideration to the possibility after Easter of taking Questions and Prayers an hour earlier in the day.

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I do not think that would be possible.

Sir Richard Acland: May I ask the Leader of the House sympathetically to consider after Easter, giving time for the Motion standing in my name and the names of about 100 hon. Members on Commonwealth and Colonial policy, or on some other occasion, on which the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations could make a statement with regard to his recent tour?

[That this House reaffirms its confidence in the course of British Commonwealth and colonial policy in the last five years and, whilst recognising the difficulties encountered today in communities where different races have reached different stages in development, calls upon white people everywhere to free themselves from the conception of racial superiority and to follow courses directed towards the brotherhood of man and based upon the Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and in rights.]

Mr. Ede: There are Supply Days and there are still four days on which Private Members can give notice of Motions which they wish to raise. If there are such a large number of hon. Members, as the hon. baronet says, who are interested in this matter, they might stand a very good chance in the Ballot.

Mr. Keenan: In view of the difficulties which have emerged in recent debates at the end of Questions, will my right hon. Friend seriously consider allocating 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour to the Leader of the Opposition in which he might raise the questions he wants to ask?

BILL PRESENTED

REVEREND J. G. MACMANAWAY'S INDEMNITY BILL

"to Indemnify the Reverend James Godfrey MacManaway from any penal consequences incurred under the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act, 1801, by sitting or voting as a Member of the Commons House of the Parliament of the United Kingdom or as a Member of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland"; presented by the Attorney-General; supported by Mr. Ede; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 83.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'Clock."—[Mr. Ede.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[10TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1950–51.

REPORT [14th March]

Orders of the Day — CLASS IX

VOTE 3. MINISTRY OF FOOD

Resolution reported:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Food; the cost of trading services, including certain subsidies; and sundry other services.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY FOOD RESERVES

4.7 p.m.

Mr. Turton: This Vote contains two substantial sums. Of the first, I only want to say one word and to put it in a form of a question. For what reason is the Minister asking for £4¼ million for the payment to the British Sugar Corporation. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether this £4¼ million is occasioned because of the bumper sugar beet harvest which agriculture has given this country, and can he also say whether, in fact, although £4¼ million extra has to be paid under this head, there will be accrued to the nation an even larger sum owing to the increased amount of Excise Duty paid on beet sugar?
Passing from that to subheading M, we find an item of £3 million for the purchase and storage of emergency reserves of food. This question is, in some way, a continuation of the inquiry which we made yesterday on the reserve stockpiling by the Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade. There exist great differences between this Vote and what we were discussing yesterday, but, if this represents the amount of stockpiling in food, it appears to be a very small proportion of the total stockpiling programme.
We gather that the total stockpiling programme in food amounts to £75 million, and yet this year only £3 million of that programme is being carried out. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us why that is happening? Why are we not adopting the policy which, as we were told yesterday, the Ministry of Supply has adopted, of having a large proportion of the programme carried out in this financial year? The conviction is growing in this country that very little has been done and is being done about providing emergency reserves of food, and it appears that, if the Government had, in fact, embarked on this programme earlier in this financial year, not only would this country be more secure, but also the Government would have saved a very considerable sum of money.
We want details of why this Government is a belated stockpiler and seems to be indulging in a policy of too little and too late. It would appear that, far from piling up stocks, this Government and this Minister have been running down stocks of food during the last nine months. Ever since he came into office the right hon. Gentleman has taken on the rôle of that well known king of England, King Canute, believing that by giving some rather ineffective commands he could stop the rising tide of increased food prices. As a result he has not obtained the food available in any of the markets because he has refused to pay the world prices for food.
It appears, therefore, that this £3 million wants careful investigation. We want to know what food stocks are involved in stockpiling. May I at this juncture recall to the House what happened during the last war and at the end of the last war? At the end of the last war, when the Government came into power, there had been amassed in this country considerable reserves of foodstuffs. In wheat these amounted to between 16 and 18 weeks' supply. It appears that in the intervening 5½ years we have dissipated the whole of those food stocks and at the same time enjoyed a meagre standard of living. I say that notwithstanding anything the Minister of Food may have said last weekend, that anybody who said we had not enjoyed a high standard was in a certain condition of mental disorder. In fact Britain has enjoyed a lower standard of

foodstuffs in the last few years than any of the neighbouring countries, at the same time as running down her foodstocks.
When we were discussing this subject before the last war, I remember the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) who is now Minister of Labour, addressing some remarks to the Minister in charge who was then my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison). The right hon. Gentleman said this:
In view of the importance of wheat as a staple food … is it not desirable, both for economic and military reasons, that very large stocks of it should be accumulated in Great Britain?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July. 1939: Vol. 350, c. 401–2.]
Many hon. Members in all parts of the House take the view that we would be more secure in war if we had considerable stocks of wheat. It is quite true that the £3 million we are discussing today represents only the value today of one week's supply of wheat.
What is the wheat position? Apparently imports for 1950 of wheat and flour were the equivalent of 76 million cwt., that is 34 million cwt. less than the imports in 1949 and previous years. We should be told at this time why the Government last year did not stockpile wheat; why, indeed, we bought a great deal less wheat than we guaranteed to take under the International Wheat Agreement, which was 95 million cwt. of wheat or flour during the wheat year. During that time our wheat stocks declined considerably, so that today we have about 11 to 12 weeks' supply in this country.
In an excellent article dealing with the stock position in this country the "Economist" recently stated that our wheat and flour stocks had been run down by about 6½ million cwt. That shows clearly that wheat consumption has gone down in the past year, just as imports have done. It appears, therefore, that the policy of the Government in building up emergency reserves does not include wheat. I ask the hon. Gentleman why the Government have taken this line over wheat
During the summer of last year there was available on the North American continent about 220 million cwt. of wheat surplus which we could have bought. Yet we kept out of that market and did not buy wheat which could then have been


bought at a reasonable price. The Argentine last year started with a surplus of 60 million cwt. of wheat. Every advice from that country suggested that Britain would be going into the Argen-time market to buy wheat. Today all that 60 million surplus of that year's wheat has disappeared, and nearly all the surplus of the coming crop has already been sold to countries other than Britain, so that only 12 million cwt. of it is left unsold. It appears, therefore, that here again the Government have been too late. They cannot now buy wheat from the United States. The United States recently sold India 40 million cwt. of wheat and now they have stopped exporting. So what wheat is bought by us will have to be bought at a high price later on.
Turning from wheat to coarse grains, in 1939 we built up a considerable stock of that commodity. Our maize imports during the last year have been far less than before the war. Not only that, but they have been 7 million cwt. less than in 1948. Other countries have been stocking up in coarse grains and in feeding-stuffs. This Government, under this Minister, appear to have taken no steps to stock up in coarse grains against an emergency.
When the Government talk in this Vote of essential foodstuffs which might be difficult to obtain in an emergency, we must consider what is the governing factor in the stockpiling of food. That is the question of the length of the carry; in other words, it is better to stockpile a commodity which requires a long and dangerous haul in time of war than one which involves only a short haul. Another but similar point of view is that commodities which are difficult to convey in time of war should be bought now.
On those two grounds this Government should have been stockpiling sugar at the present time. After all, in the war we found that sugar coming to us from the Caribbean and from the West Indies needed double the haul of the grain coming from the North American continent. Quite clearly there was plenty of sugar available for the Government to have brought supplies during the last year. I noticed that in a speech at the annual meeting of Tate and Lyle, Lord Lyle said that at present the Government could have some 2½million tons of sugar from the Empire. That would have been

quite sufficient both for stockpiling and also for ending the sugar ration, and so letting the housewife buy all the sugar she requires.
The Minister should give us an explanation of what he has been doing with regard to sugar buying during the last 12 months. It is true that sugar imports have been larger than they were in the previous year; they are 2,750,000 tons, whereas in the previous year they were 2,500,000 tons, but at the same time the Government have been profligate in exporting that sugar, so that sugar exports have increased from 500,000 tons to 750,000 tons, and in the end we have actually less retained imports this year than last year. It may be that we have earned dollars, but have we gained in security? Again using the "Economist" figures, we find that our sugar stocks are at just about the level of last year; in fact, they are 30,000 tons more this year than they were last year. There was an opportunity, and still is an opportunity, to stockpile in sugar and thereby to save shipping in time of war and give the people the assurance of larger household supplies at the present time.
I want to mention one other commodity which those with experience at the Ministry of Food found most difficult to stockpile during the war. It is dried fruit, which comes either from Australia or from the eastern end of the Mediterranean. If it comes from the eastern end of the Mediterranean, then in a war like the last dried fruit has to be carried from the Eastern Mediterranean, down the Suez Canal, round Africa and across to North America, and then be brought over in that way. A wise Government would stockpile dried fruit in order to save that carry in time of war. All the evidence shows that our stocks of dried fruit are today lower than they have ever been. Our imports last year were down by 100,000 tons.
I find it very hard to see what this £3 million represents. It is clearly not wheat; it is unlikely to be sugar; clearly it is not coarse grains, and clearly it is not dried fruit. One thing is abundantly clear—it is not carcase meat or corned meat. I notice that in another place a noble Lord, speaking for the Government on the question of food, stated that the stocks of carcase meat during the last 12 months have dropped


by 200,000 tons. In 1950 we consumed about 2,300,000 tons of which, he said, some came from stocks, and the amount that came from supplies was 2,100,000 tons. So we are not stockpiling in carcase meat nor, indeed, are we stockpiling in corned meat.
Hon. Members in all parts of the House must be deeply concerned from the security angle as to what has been happening over corned meat. The consumption last year was 13,000 tons more than the imports of corned meat. During the last two months for which we have records, December and January, the imports of corned meat amounted to some 2,800 tons, and we have consumed 27,000 tons in those two months. How much longer can we go on with this policy of eating up our stocks of corned meat? If war comes, then either for military operations or for Civil Defence we shall want every pound or ton of corned meat on which we can lay hands. It would appear that the Government, owing to their obstinacy in their bulk trading negotiations with certain countries, are squandering the corned meat supplies which we would require in war.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The hon. Member has stated a very reasoned case up to now, but I think the introduction of that note about bulk buying has rather affected his reasoned case. I am sure he remembers the Essential Commodities Act before the war, and that bulk buying of important commodities such as those with which he is dealing took place on a very big scale.

Mr. Turton: The charge I made was not that the Government had bulk bought, but that they had been obstinate in their methods, as a Government monopoly, state-trading on these bulk purchase lines. Quite clearly bulk purchase is carried on and was carried on by private enterprise, or by Governments, but what has distinguished the present Minister and his predecessor from previous bulk purchasers has been their obstinacy and the way in which they have hurled about charges, such as blackmail, against those countries with which they are negotiating. We have not the carcase meat, we are living on stocks, and unfortunately we have been dissipating those corned meat stocks which we shall require should an emergency come.
The "Economist" made a very careful calculation of our stocks in these different commodities. Their figures show a considerable run-down in stocks of wheat, of flour, of carcase meat, of bacon and ham, of butter, of cheese and of tea. I calculated that to wipe out that run-down and build up our stocks in 1951 to where they stood just before the General Election in 1950 would require at present prices £38 million at the present date, and I have given the Government credit for the increase in sugar stocks of 30,000 tons. Over all, £38 million is required. We are presented today with a bill for £3 million. I ask the hon. Gentleman to say what is represented by that £3 million and whether he has taken into calculation the fact that he and his Minister have run down stocks by £38 million.
I also ask that in his reply he should tell the country about his plans for the storage of these essential reserves. During the war, the Ministers responsible built up a very valuable storage system in this country. There were not only privately-owned silos and stores, but some 15 Government-erected large silos and food stores and, in addition, small buffer depots—many of them iron shelters—scattered in hundreds all over the country.
What has happened to these food stores? To my knowledge a great deal of that space has now passed out of our control. A great many of the food stores have either been handed back for other purposes or have been destroyed. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what steps he is taking as a part of our re-armament plan to re-create storage space scattered all over the country, under proper dispersal arrangements, so that we might have somewhere to put these essential reserves for which we are voting money today.
I believe it would be tragic if the Government went in for a policy of extensive building of food stores which would interfere with our housing programme and with the programme of civil engineering which will be required for defence purposes. I believe that if the Government attacked the problem energetically, they would find, on farms and in many of the large houses which are becoming uninhabited, or nearly uninhabited, ample space to be earmarked for the storage of food in emergency. I beg the Government to take early action in this matter before it is too late. There


will be other demands for that space, and it is vitally important to get storage room early.
I, like other of my hon. Friends, am concerned about this problem of the emergency food reserves. It may well be that we have not great confidence in either the present Minister or the past Minister. We have seen a succession of mishandled problems and muddles, whether groundnuts, or eggs from Gambia which we discussed last week. We feel that the right hon. Gentleman is adding to them by the way in which he is tackling this question of food stocks. We believe, from all the evidence that we can gather, that this £3 million is an unreal figure, and we ask him to give replies to the questions I have asked.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Dye: We have heard an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), but it occurs to me that if we are to have an open discussion in this House on the individual items which it is the duty of the Government to buy in different parts of the world in order to stockpile in the event of emergency, we are obviously inviting those people who own such stocks to increase prices against the Government when they endeavour to make such purchases.
Surely it should be obvious to any business person that if the Government have to buy food in the world markets today, and it is well known that there are not any large quantities in any part of the world, the Government must be free to make such purchases in a businesslike way without having it noticed all over the world that they are doing so or are about to do so. Otherwise, whether it be £3 million or £30 million which is set aside for the purpose, it will buy much less, and the people of this country will be disadvantaged to that extent.
I should have thought that it would have been wise policy on the part of the Government to have gone about such a matter quietly, and have used their discretion, knowing what are the stocks in the country and where any stocks of food are available or are likely to become available. Accordingly, I should doubt the wisdom of a discussion along the lines of the questions which have been asked by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton.

Captain Duncan: As the hon. Member is doubting the wisdom of my hon. Friend, may I put it to him that these are Supplementary Estimates for the year ending 31st March this year—which is a fortnight hence. Therefore, this £3 million which is to be expended ought by now to have bought what it was intended to buy.

Mr. Dye: It should also be obvious to the hon. and gallant Member that if it was necessary to buy certain foods up to 31st March this year, so it would also be necessary to buy after that date; and that any discussion on the current year's Supplementary Estimates applies also to next year.

Captain Duncan: We are not allowed to talk about that today.

Mr. Dye: We are not allowed to go so far, but I should have thought that the principle was the same, and that the question of the wisdom of a discussion on the lines to which I have referred would have been the same.
We have seen a complete change on the part of hon. Members opposite in that until quite recently they were urging His Majesty's Ministers to disperse the stocks which were held in store in various parts of the country. Question after question has been hurled across the Floor of the House by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton about stocks of coarse grain which he knew existed, and which he and others have said ought to have been sold to the farmers and the stock keepers of the country——

Mr. Turton: The hon. Member has made reference to certain questions I have asked. They were asked because that coarse grain had been improperly stored and was becoming weevil infested, and as a result had to be sold at a considerable loss.

Mr. Dye: In one or two cases that is true, but the general principle behind the questions of hon. Gentlemen opposite was that these stocks should be dispersed to the poultry and pig farmers of the country. That was the line taken up to quite a short time ago, so that not a great deal of foresight has informed the attitude which hon. Members opposite are now adopting.
If we are to carry out a policy of stockpiling such as is indicated in this modest


Supplementary Estimate, then it will be necessary to restrict to the consuming public supplies that become available. In his reference to sugar, for example, the hon. Gentleman made reference to a statement by Lord Lyle, as the head of Tate and Lyle Limited, that it would be possible to deration sugar—that the housewife could have all the sugar she liked. Yet the hon. Member now says that it would at the same time also be possible to stockpile large quantities of sugar. From that it can only be inferred that there are very big supplies available to this country which have not to be purchased abroad because if we purchase sugar abroad with some of the sterling or dollars available we must have less of something else—of timber, or coarse grains or other commodities—which has to be bought and transported in ships.

Mr. Turton: If the hon. Member would like to know the figure Lord Lyle gave, it was that the amount of Empire sugar available is 2,500,000 tons. According to the present Minister of National Insurance if we had 2,300,000 tons we should not require sugar rationing. That would allow a balance of 200,000 tons for stockpiling, which is six times the amount of our present stocks.

Mr. Dye: That is, of course, if the estimate given by that gentleman is true.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Or that given by the Minister.

Mr. Dye: If the estimate of the amount available is true, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would stake his reputation that it is true. It may very well be that certain quantities are available but to say that today we could do the two things, namely, free sugar from rationing both to domestic consumers and manufacturers, and at the same time stockpile against our future requirements, can only mean that somewhere there are mountains of sugar available.
It is true that this year we have had in this country the best crop of beet sugar we have ever had. There are, however, indications that the coming season will be one of the worst, and that on the basis of averages any surplus we may have over and above our immediate requirements for this year of home-produced sugar may very well be neces-

sary to make up the deficiencies of the coming sugar beet crop. Therefore, there is not, as I see the matter, a lot in that argument.
Again, the hon. Member referred to coarse grains and how, before the war, in 1938–39, we had been able to build up big stocks. Well I remember that, as a farmer, and how it was achieved. In 1938 importers brought in large quantities of grain from the Continent and elsewhere with the result that the farmers in this country could not get more than 6s. per cwt. for the barley they had grown. If that is the way to stockpile, as was done 12 years ago, it would be disastrous to the whole system of guaranteed prices to the farming community. It is quite true that we need more coarse grains to feed our increasing stocks of poultry, pigs and cattle, but if during this current period we are also to build up large stockpiles, then surely some of those must go hungry.
We are faced with a very difficult problem indeed. As regards both the quantities available in the world at large and our ability as a country to pay the fising prices of coarse grains in world markets, we shall have difficulties in getting through. Quite clearly it will be difficult to purchase abroad all the coarse grains we need in order to feed our existing farm stocks, quite apart from stockpiling, and the Ministry of Food or whoever is in charge of affairs, whether under a Labour or a Conservative Government or even, for example, under a National Government, would have the greatest difficulties in meeting all our requirements.
What is needed, above all else, is that there should be maintained at the Ministry of Food the whole machinery for purchasing the imported feedingstuffs for our cattle—that is most essential. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton is now wholeheartedly in favour of this policy, whereas up to only a few weeks ago he and his hon. Friends were advocating that all the work now being done in this respect by the Ministry of Food should be thrown over to private enterprise, who should be allowed to do it, as they did it in 1938, to the detriment of our own producers of feedingstuffs.
I hope, therefore, that not only will the Ministry of Food be very wary in what they say about what they are doing,


but that they will strengthen their arm and all the powers they possess, in order to ensure to the country the most economical and efficient purchasing of the food which is needed for direct human consumption. What is of equal importance is the buying of feedingstuffs, so that our increasing flocks and herds can be well fed, for our farms are the best place in which to do any stockpiling to meet the requirements of the future.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Although I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the subject of the debate, I should have preferred to hear the Minister's statement before raising the various issues on which we should like information, because obviously, in trying to obtain elucidation on some of the facts under discussion, it is better to know at the outset as much about the position as the Minister is able to tell us.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), who opened the debate, in asking for the fullest details of the £4¼ million that is to go to the British Sugar Corporation. Is it the Government's intention to recoup any of this expenditure? We know that there is a difference in price, both to the public and to the trade, and obviously, from the point of view of the subsidy, a great deal will be gained by permitting much of this amount to go to the trade. Is it the Government's intention that some of this £4¼ million will be recouped, presumably, by an increase in the price of sugar, as Was done yesterday in the case of tea, or what other intentions has the Minister? Many of us sincerely hope that the country will not have to meet this increased cost; yet on the face of things, if we are to keep prices stable, I gather that there is really no alternative. The additional beet sugar which we are to get will account in a large measure for these increased costs, and this is a matter of very great importance.
Turning to the question of the £3 million for emergency reserves, I support fully the views of my hon. Friend, but I feel that the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), has missed the whole point of the argument, because even if we were to support the Government's bulk buying, this figure of £3 million would be affected. Without entering into an argument on whether

bulk buying is right or wrong, I feel that if bulk buying did not exist and the trade itself were responsible for supplies today, then the trade would obviously be carrying very much larger stocks than the Government might think are necessary or indeed, possible.
I feel very strongly that private enterprise trade could get supplies which in many instances the Government simply cannot get. I am not trying to be disrespectful to those in the Government, but this really is something which is not "up their street." They do not have all the contacts which private enterprise has, nor the tremendous knowledge which supports those in private enterprise in obtaining the stocks which are required.

Mr. Michael Foot: If the hon. Member is referring to sugar, from where does he think the extra supplies are to come?

Mr. Harris: I am not referring specifically to sugar, although I intend to refer to that commodity in a moment. I refer to things like milk power, dried eggs and supplies of that kind, and even cornflour, for which the Government are responsible and which are issued to the trade. Had private enterprise had the chance, it certainly would not have limited itself by 31st March to an additional expenditure, as is reflected in the Supplementary Estimate, of only £3 million. In this respect the Government's policy is harmful.. If trouble were to come, we know that obviously there would be tremendous limitations.
Although it is a commodity which could be done without at a time of crisis, I feel it is worth while mentioning, particularly the question of cornflour. Recent allocations to the trade have been very much delayed because there were not sufficient stocks immediately available to enable supplies to come forward. There are many instances where the stockpiling by the Government is definitely breaking down. This is one of the unfortunate effects of their policy of bulk buying.
My hon. Friend dealt also with the storage of stocks in the country. I think it is common knowledge that, particularly during the war and subsequently, the storage of much of the Government's bulk supplies and emergency reserves called for much better attention than was in fact exercised. I believe that this was gener-


ally known by the officers concerned. In food factories, the greatest care has to be taken by manufacturers in the handling of stocks. They are subject to visits by one officer after another with the right—even the Ministry of Agriculture now have this right—to go into the food factories, to make just and proper criticisms and to ask for certain action to be taken, even to the length of goods being destroyed if those carrying out the inspections decide that certain items have to be condemned. I assure hon. Members that this process would get out of hand in the various storage places of the Government throughout the country. The premises they chose should have received much better attention, and if, as we all sincerely hope, it is intended to increase the stockpiles that we shall need, I trust that storage will receive much better attention than it has received so far.
The way the stock is turned over is vital for such materials as wheat, which is subject to weevil and other causes of deterioration. I can assure the Minister that in the last few years milk powder supplied from the Government has been in shocking condition and the manufacturers themselves have had to say, "We will not have those supplies." There was no alternative. It was not because the milk powder produced was in any way bad; it was only because of the bad storage under the control of the Ministry. It is, therefore, important to have good storage in any stockpiling of foodstuffs which are subject to weevil and other causes of deterioration, and I ask the Minister to take all necessary precautions when he begins to develop this policy. The storage premises must be good; the supervision must be good; and the stocks must be turned over very carefully in the order in which they come into this country.

Mr. Keenan: Is not most of the storage still in the hands of private traders?

Mr. Harris: Private enterprise trade does come into general storage quite a lot. I am referring to places which I am sure the hon. Gentleman must have seen, commandeered by the Government, such as cinemas and theatres.

Mr. Keenan: Not since the war. They have gone.

Mr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman is wrong there. They have been going gradually up to now, but I am saying that in the last four to five years in particular the poor quality of some of the storage space has been very noticeable. In many instances the Government have had to write stocks off; they have deteriorated so badly that the Government have had to call it a day. If we are to start stockpiling, it may have to be done very gradually, because we cannot go round the world shouting that we are buying this or buying that, otherwise we are bound to suffer. As the Minister begins this gradual stockpiling, more care should be taken than has been taken in the past over storage; otherwise the country suffers, not only economically but in wastage of food supplies.
I should like to know what is included in the £3 million up to 31st March. I cannot seriously believe that it would be giving anything away to give us a general list of what is contained in this figure. Hon. Members differ as to what type of stocks we should carry, but we should have some information about what the Government believe to be the position.
On sugar I want to be very frank. There is no party issue involved. No doubt the statement made by Lord Lyle the other day, backed by all the advice he has to his hand, would be accurate. But the statement of the Minister—and again I am not hitting at the Minister personally—is more guess work than Lord Lyle's statement. Lord Lyle said that supplies to the extent of 2,600,000 tons were available. The Ministry's belief of a consumption of 2,300,000 tons may well be wide of the mark. Not only will the figure have changed since that statement was made, but there are other governing factors.
One governing factor which no one should forget is the price factor. No doubt many people would buy greater supplies if they had the money to do so. Today the housewife has only a certain amount of money, and as prices rise she buys less. That is to be seen in proprietary articles and other things. It therefore depends on the Government's policy on, for instance, sugar. If the policy is to put up the price of sugar in due course—which may unfortunately happen—that must cut consumption, although there would be a tremendous rush on it to start with. Although I readily admit that sugar is one of


the cheapest articles the housewife buys, if a woman has £1 to spend she can buy only so much sugar, and if the price goes up, her consumption is cut. That is understood and recognised everywhere in the trade today by anybody who is concerned with the public spending ability, and I believe that price can be a governing factor.
I do not think the Minister could possibly have had sufficiently up-to-date advice to know whether or not his figure of 2,300,000 tons is accurate. It is almost impossible to judge that when people's palates have changed so much in five years. In the last four or five years people's tastes have changed. An article may be selling very fast one day, but almost overnight people change to some other type of food. Considerable change has naturally been brought about by the limitation of supplies. When something the public have not seen for years suddenly becomes available, they will buy it.
The sugar problem is a very difficult one. It is our contention that there should be a certain stockpiling of sugar, but the Government would obviously have to proceed very cautiously in reaching a stage when they could de-ration sugar. I want to be very frank about this, because it is a most difficult problem. I think a gradual increase in the allowance of sugar to the public is, in principle, the soundest way to tackle the problem. That does not mean to say that we should not get all the supplies we can. I agree that we must get all the sugar that is available. We have been advised, particularly on the colonial side, that more sugar could be obtained.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman says "We have been advised, particularly on the colonial side, that more sugar could be obtained." Would he say whether he thinks we are buying all the sugar we can from the West Indies?

Mr. Harris: That is a very fair question. I would say that the difficulty at present is——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I do not think it arises on this Vote.

Mr. Harris: To be perfectly frank. Sir Charles. I thought it might. I said earlier that I did not know what the £3 million

included, but I was hoping it would include a certain amount of sugar, and, with your permission, I should like to answer the hon. Gentleman. I believe that we have taken so long in telling the Colonies what they could go ahead producing that they have not stepped up production to the maximum, with the result that at this moment there is no additional sugar to buy. I believe that we could have had more sugar if we had given the Colonies the incentive to produce it.

Mr. Foot: Surely the fact is that today we buy from the West Indies every scrap of sugar they will produce. Indeed, we have given them a contract for the future and they have asked for a longer contract. Lord Lyle is saying that the whole of that contract should be torn up. Is that the policy the hon. Gentleman is recommending?

Mr. Harris: I should make it clear that I am not tied to Lord Lyle's views on this subject. I know that the hon. Member is very knowledgeable on the subject of the West Indies, and I do not think be believes that the West Indies could supply us with more sugar. They could have done so if we had moved more quickly after the war. I am anxious that we should stockpile sugar to a certain degree, and I do not think it would be to the benefit of the country suddenly to deration sugar. That must be done very carefully. We all sincerely hope that sugar will soon be derationed, but I have never made the statement that it can be derationed quickly. That is a very tricky question.
I am anxious to see details of the buildup of this £3 million. I am anxious to ensure that the way in which the Government carry out stockpiling is most carefully watched but, at the same time, speeded up to the maximum. I do not think that we are going fast enough. I am afraid that, when the details are disclosed, many essentials which we should like to be included will not be there. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr Turton) referred to wheat. We very much doubt if this figure can contain very much wheat.
Another matter which I wish to discuss is the figure of £4,797,970 under "Trading Services." Is it possible for us to be given some idea of the details of the


build-up of that sum of money? I presume that this is a marginal profit, in some form or other, which was incurred by the Ministry in their handling of certain foodstuffs. At the moment they are following the policy of cutting margins as tightly as they can, but I know that they do not practice that policy in their own Department. They do not mind taking the biggest margin that they can get. I should like to know what the average marginal profit is in this figure.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is now discussing a saving.

Mr. Harris: Yes, Sir. I suppose that I am. This is rather a difficult matter, because we are dealing with a sum of £10 on this Vote, whereas we want to talk about a sum of over £7 million. If we talk about what has been done with the £7 million, can we not talk about what has been saved? Otherwise, I do not see how we can talk about anything, because there is only £10 on the Vote. If we cannot talk about the expenditure of the £7 million, I should like to know what we can talk about.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Erskine May uses the words, on page 716:
nor can savings be discussed.

Mr. Harris: I suppose it is unusual for the Government to be able to refer to a saving. A saving is such a unique circumstance that it seems to be worth talking about. However, Sir, I accept your Ruling. I shall have to seek some other opportunity to ask for, information.
I conclude by asking the Minister to be good enough to give as much detail as he can, within the bounds of security, of the build-up of the £3 million. Also, I should like to know the details of the build-up of the £4,797,970. Is there any chance in the next year of getting back some of this expenditure; or is it expected that a similar large expenditure will have to take place in future, although we have heard that such a large amount of beet sugar may not be available? I presume that that would cause another financial complication. If we go ahead with the stockpiling of food, can we be assured that, for this £3 million, we shall be able to store it under the best possible conditions so that we can get the best value from it and so that it will not deteriorate?

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Richard Adams: I apologise for the fact that I do not propose to follow the subject under discussion—namely, the important one of stockpiling—except to say that, in view of its importance, I am surprised that, since the time is given to the Opposition to raise this matter, there is such a small number of hon. Members opposite.

Commander Maitland: What about hon. Members on the Government benches?

Mr. Adams: I am also surprised at the rather comatose condition of most hon. Members opposite——

Mr. F. Harris: May I explain to the hon. Gentleman that we on this side of the House believe that those who know something about a subject should concentrate on it? That is what we are trying to do.

Mr. Adams: If I had not been interrupted, I should have said that no doubt this small rearguard had been left here this afternoon while the remainder of the Members of the Opposition were taking a rest in preparation for the night-shift.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that above the Gangway on his side of the House there is only one Socialist private Member?

Mr. Turton: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Hemsworth to sit with both his feet on the bench?

Mr. David Griffiths: I should like to correct the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). I am not the hon. Member for Hemsworth. Furthermore, my feet were not on the seat.

Mr. Adams: Since I assume, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you do not intend to make any reply to that point of order, in view of its stupid origin, I should like to refer to the reason I have intervened in this debate. I want to make a few observations on the stupid, contemptible and reprehensible conduct of the Opposition in moving the Prayers in the way they did last night.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are long past the Prayers of last night.

Mr. F. Harris: Wake up.

Mr. Adams: I note, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in this Vote there is under Subhead C a reference to "Special Services and General Administrative Expenses." I submit that these administrative expenses are affected by the operations of His Majesty's Opposition.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will take another look, he will see that these are savings. I ruled a few minutes ago that savings cannot be discussed.

Mr. Adams: I have no intention whatever of discussing the savings. I am simply using this opportunity of making what comments I have to make, because that printed Subhead is contained on page 68. I have no intention of making any reference to savings. My purpose was to say that these administrative services are affected by what His Majesty's Opposition care to do in this matter of Prayers.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is talking about them, is he not? Talking and discussing are very much the same.

Mr. Adams: There is a fine point of difference. Naturally, I accept the Ruling of the Chair that it would be improper and out of order for me to discuss the savings—in other words, that it would be improper for me to make any reference to the sum of £14,470. All that I am doing, I submit, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is to use the fact that Subhead C, "Special Services and General Administrative Expenses," is contained in this Vote to make some pointed observations on the behaviour of His Majesty's Opposition——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not know what sort of pointed observations the hon. Member wishes to make, but he certainly cannot speak on savings.

Mr. Adams: Naturally, I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I hasten to assure you that I have no intention of discussing savings at all. I am merely using this opportunity, as I believe I am entitled to do, to draw attention to the reprehensible conduct of hon. Members opposite in pursuing the course that they have——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order! Our discussion must be confined to the Supple-

mentary Estimate. I do not see how the conduct of hon. Members opposite arises on it.

Mr. Adams: I submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that as "Special Services and General Administrative Expenses" forms a subhead of the total Vote of £402 million, I am entitled to make a reference to administrative services, but not. I agree, to savings.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have warned the hon. Gentleman several times that I am not going to have savings discussed, and, if he continues to do so, I shall ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Adams: Naturally, I defer to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, though I will merely repeat once again that I have no intention whatsoever of referring to that saving. I am merely using this opportunity, since the general administrative services are one of the subheads in the Vote, to make a few concise and to-the-point observations upon the conduct of His Majesty's Opposition.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not see how the behaviour of His Majesty's Opposition can be linked up with savings, and I cannot allow it.

Mr. Adams: On that point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would assure you that it is not in any way linked up with the savings, because His Majesty's Opposition have no regard for these Estimates at all. They are quite incapable of understanding them. Therefore, any behaviour to which I am going to refer would in no way be related to the matter of savings. I rose in order to draw attention to the reprehensible, stupid, contemptible behaviour of His Majesty's Opposition——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order, order! I am being very patient. I ask the hon. Member not to tax my patience too much.

Mr. Adams: I will now pass, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the next point that I wish to make, and it is that I wish to make reference to the behaviour of the Opposition and, in particular, if I may, to the personal conduct of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bristol, North-West (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite)——

Captain Crooksbank: Really!

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. R. Adams), to resume his seat.

Mr. R. Adams: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Since I am compelled by your Ruling to resume my seat, I must give notice that, in view of what happened last night, I shall take the earliest possible opportunity of making personal reflections upon the behaviour of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bristol, North-West.

Captain Crookshank: Really!

5.14 p.m.

Commander Maitland: Perhaps we may now return to discussion of the matter raised so ably and clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye). It seemed to me that, if we were to take his advice—if we were not to ask for such information as we are doing this afternoon—we should never be able to find out anything, because we should always be told that it was not in somebody's interest to give it. It is of vital, overriding importance that the Government should give at least an assurance that our stocks of food are adequate in the light of the present international situation.

Mr. Dye: I agree.

Commander Maitland: Then we are agreed? I am very pleased about that.

Mr. Dye: That was what the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton asked.

Commander Maitland: The hon. Member mentioned a number of matters on which he wanted assurances. That seems to be a perfectly proper thing to do at the moment. The hon. Member for Norfolk South-West said that it would be extremely difficult to stockpile. That is so, and everybody realises it, but sometimes difficulties must be overridden in the light of the public need.

Mr. Dye: I agree, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman believes that, where is the logic in coming to the House and opposing the very orders which are made

to restrict consumption by the general public so that we can stockpile?

Commander Maitland: I will tell the hon. Gentleman. There have been large storages of food in my constituency which I have asked should be dispersed. The reason is that they have been infested by rats and have deteriorated, and it was obviously common sense that the Government should have dispersed them earlier. That will always happen if we are ever to have reserves of any sort in this country. It will always be a question of turnover. The hon. Member is entirely wrong in what he is suggesting. We are suggesting, and we always have done, that the turnover should be larger in volume than it has been in the past.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris), has an interest, perhaps a vested interest, in the matter of food. I also have a vested interest in the matter. While at the moment, when we are re-arming, it is very difficult to single out one subject as being absolutely essential to the life of the country, there can be no doubt that if the Government fail to build up sufficient supplies of food here, they will have betrayed the trust of the people. No expenditure of money upon rearmament, no expenditure of money on guns, ships and aeroplanes, can possibly protect this country unless we have built up those supplies of food. It has often been said of other countries that they bought guns before butter. Guns are obvious subjects of re-armament, and butter is not so obvious; but for an island which depends largely for its food upon supplies brought by sea, butter is almost of more importance than guns. It is simply to get an assurance from the Minister about this that we are asking these questions today.
In view of the importance of the matter, I am extremely surprised that the Minister of Food is not here. I should have thought that on a matter of this importance the Minister himself would have come to the House and assured us that the Government are taking the necessary vital steps. One of the things that is worrying us is the obvious temptation which the Government have had during the last few months to dissipate their stocks. My hon. Friends have given instances, and I believe we are right in


thinking that there has been a considerable run-down in our food stores. We are anxious about the corned beef situation. We believe that our stocks in this food have been run down. We have seen food stores all over the country gradually turned over to other purposes. In this Vote the Government ask for a sum in order to create food storage accommodation. It seems a very small amount. I believe that we are not allowed to discuss its size in that context, but I want an assurance from the Minister that he is satisfied that, in our present situation, food storage and the stockpiling of food are keeping pace with the rest of our rearmament programme.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Williams: The first thing that strikes one when looking at these Supplementary Estimates is that there is no original Estimate at all. I say at once that that is an indictment of the Government. We have been in a very dangerous and difficult international situation for a very long time, and that situation has not deteriorated very much during the last few months. Yet there has been no thought of stockpiling before this year, and now we have only this small sum of £3 million suggested. Any hon. Member can very quickly work out that this paltry sum is equivalent to 1s. 4d. per head of the population of this country, which means that, on average, we are going to store one tin of, say, Heinz beans per person.

Mr. Keenan: Surely, the hon. Gentleman is making a mistake when he says that £3 million spread over a population of 50 million works out only at 1s. 4d. per head.

Mr. Williams: Fifty million into £3 million is, approximately, 6 per cent., and 6 per cent. of £1 is, approximately, 1s. 4d. I think that if the hon. Gentleman takes out paper and pencil he will find that I am, in fact, right in saying that the amount is equivalent to one tin of Heinz beans. A tin of beans would sustain the Minister of Food for, perhaps, six hours, and the Prime Minister for, perhaps eight hours, but, in any case, it is a very small amount per head to stockpile as a precaution in case war comes along.
It is of the utmost importance that we should use this money in the best way, and, in spite of what was said by the

hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) that to do so might jeopardise the Government's chances of making good bargains, I am going to make some suggestions, although I do not think that they will very seriously embarrass the Minister. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said, it is very important that we should use this money to store the foods most difficult to obtain in time of war, namely, those which have to come from the farthest distance. I think that probably the most important commodity we could stockpile would be animal feedingstuffs of a high protein content.
I believe that to be far more important than the laying in of stores for human consumption because such feedingstuffs can be converted into far greater quantities of food than we could possibly store in warehouses or anywhere else. In the past, the Government have imported vast amounts of coarse grain from Russia, the Argentine, and elsewhere. Had they concentrated on spending even very valuable dollars on feedingstuffs of a high protein content, they would have been very much wiser, because if we are to produce more food in this country in an emergency we must have balanced feedingstuffs.
There is no doubt that if war comes, our farmers will, as before, produce very much more grain than they do at other times, and the fact that there was high protein feedingstuffs stored ready to mix with their home-grown coarse grains would give them an enormous incentive to concentrate on producing more roots, barley and oats. Having this protein for mixing purposes is like putting butter on bread and turning it into a drawing-room meal instead of having a prison diet of dry bread, or, again, like putting soda into whisky, when the soda becomes at once far more valuable. In farming terms, it means that we are getting a production ration instead of a mere maintenance ration.
Up to the present the feedingstuffs which have been imported have, on average, contained only 15 per cent. of protein. Many of us know that it requires at least 22 per cent. of protein in order to have a balanced feedingstuff for the production of milk. Oil cakes contain up to 40 per cent. of protein, but, here again, I know that valuable dollars would have to be used to buy them. My contention is that if we have these high protein


feedingstuffs, we shall have the best possible items for storing in the event of war. They are obviously much easier to store than many other things because they are concentrated, and, as I have already said, they would give farmers an incentive to produce other coarse grains to go with them and give them a balanced ration.
There is one further suggestion I wish to make about the storing of food. If only the Government would encourage the housewives to lay in a store of food, as, indeed, they were encouraged to do after Dunkirk, they would find space in their larders, their cellars, or even their bottom drawers in which to put these tinned foods. This £3 million is only equivalent, as I have pointed out, to one tin of beans per person, but I think the Government would find that many housewives would be able to store tinned foods far in excess of that value, that such storing would be far more successful than what the Government are themselves trying to do, and that it would not cost the Government anything at all. It would also give people confidence to know that they had, say, a fortnight's supply of food in the house, and food stored in this way would be well distributed throughout the whole country instead of being vulnerable in the event of war to enemy attack as it would be, in all probability, if stored in warehouses.
I was very interested to hear one of my hon. Friends also mention the storing of food in houses. I suggest to the Government that they should come out quickly with a policy for doing this, because there are many houses in the country with empty rooms which cannot be used for living purposes, but which are perfectly waterproof and which could hold an amount of tinned foods. For instance, if the Government were to say that they would pay up to £2 or £3 per 1,000 cubic feet, or whatever a good market price would be, for such accommodation, I believe they would get many offers from people in large country houses and elsewhere who have such space available, space which cannot be used for other purposes. But they must let the people know what they want. They should advertise the fact that they require such space for storage purposes, when I am sure they would get the necessary accommodation, and would find it cheaper than building large warehouses at very heavy cost.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Edgar Granville: I wish to refer to one point, and to one point only. It is the question which has been raised by some hon. Members regarding storage. In referring to stockpiling yesterday, the Minister of Supply said that the Government were already using aerodrome buildings and temporary buildings of wooden construction for this purpose. As has been said, it is extremely important that the Ministry of Food should do whatever stockpiling it can in the existing uncertain and difficult situation but, as the Minister knows, there is a certain amount of storing going on which has not always been done under the best conditions, or with the best results.
I have already raised with his Department a problem in my own constituency where wooden buildings were being used for the storage of food and were literally alive with rats. This is an extremely serious thing for the taxpayer and the Parliamentary Secretary's Department because of the resultant loss. But it is also extremely important to the surrounding farmers who find that they have a plague of rats which have bred in the first place in these wooden buildings on aerodromes, which are completely unfitted for the storage of food. I understand that the Ministry of Food have tried to deal with this by using various methods of pest destruction which, on the whole, I think have been unsatisfactory. The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, but I have given him instances in which when inspectors of this Department have visited the buildings. They come down once every six months and give the place a whiff of gas or something of that sort and then think they have solved the problem, but that is not so.
What are the Government doing about this problem? It is no good asking for £3 million for the stockpiling or storage of food if proper precautions are not taken to safeguard the food when, because of existing circumstances, use has to be made of ordinary temporary buildings on aerodromes. I understand that the practice during the war was to get people who really knew something about it to do this work. There was an institution called, I believe, Pest Control, which knew how to do it. What is it costing the Ministry to try to deal with the problem as compared with the cost during the war when it was handled by that very efficient


organisation, Pest Control? There is a good deal of feeling among farmers and people in the countryside that these storage arrangements are merely producing a plague of rats.

Mr. Dye: Would the hon. Member mention the particular aerodrome he has in mind? I found the conditions in Norfolk were very good and that very few rats were to be seen.

Mr. Granville: Certainly; I was referring to an aerodrome at Leiston, and there is also one near Halesworth, both in my constituency. I visited both aerodromes, and one had only to look through the keyholes of these buildings to see them alive with rats. The rats were running about all over the place, eating grain which I believe was imported from Russia and brought up by road transport from Ipswich and dumped in these wooden buildings. These arrangements are not satisfactory. If we are to spend this money on very necessary de-centralisation of the stockpiling of food, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give an assurance that there are proper and efficient arrangements to keep down vermin and to prevent stocks that civilians will want to eat from being consumed by rats.

5.35 p.m.

Captain Duncan: I support what the Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) has said by asking the Parliamentary Secretary to look through the columns of the Dundee Press of last year, in which he will see pictures of a store in Dundee where all the cats of Dundee seemed to congregate to catch the mice eating the hon. Gentleman's grain.
On page 69 of the Supplementary Estimate there is a footnote to Sub-head F—"Contribution to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations" which says:
Additional provision required to enable the full contribution for 1951 to be paid before 31st March, 1951.
That is a quite reasonable thing to expect, but are we asked to do this to keep this organisation solvent because other nations are not keeping up their contributions?
I notice that there was no sum allowed in the original Estimate in respect of sub-head M—"Purchase and Storage, etc., of Emergency Reserves." There-

fore, it is a new service. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has done a service in starting this debate today to find out what line the Government are following here. The service is new only to the extent of existing circumstances; but I remember that in 1938 Mr. French discharged a similar function in the Board of Trade before the Ministry of Food or the Ministry of Supply were set up. He did all this work privately through the existing trade and established a stockpile before anybody knew about it. Now the Government are coming forward with this estimate and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said, they have "missed the bus" again by waiting too long.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, Southwest (Mr. Dye), alluded to something which I also wish to mention. He said that, as far as the storage of materials in this country is concerned, the best place to store them is on the farm. I should like to give a few figures about the stocks of livestock on the farms. In 1939 there were 8,872,000 cattle in this country. Today there are 10,500.000, but from them we are getting a considerably smaller proportion of meat. These figures come from "The Monthly Digest of Statistics" which the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West, can obtain in the Library. The average amount of meat of all kinds going into the trade in 1938—I admit it was of all kinds—was 21,000 tons weekly. In 1950 the average for the whole year was only 16,675 tons, according to my mathematics.

Mr. Dye: Surely the explanation is quite clear.

Captain Duncan: I am going to give the explanation.

Mr. Dye: They are now young cattle which will be killed next, year and the year following.

Captain Duncan: That is just part of the explanation to which I was coming; it is not the whole explanation. There are more cattle but there is less beef. Admittedly there are fewer sheep and 100,000 fewer breeding sows, and about one million fewer pigs. It seems to me there are two ways of stockpiling on the farm. Our policy should be directed to increasing the amount of meat as


opposed to livestock coming into the market, which can either be canned and used for the ration—and I hope to goodness the ration will be bigger than it is now—or stored in cold storage.
There are two ways of doing it. One is to encourage still more cattle and to secure an increase of at least six million in the sheep population, which is six million fewer than it was in 1949, and an increase of at least one million in the pig population. We would thus get not only more cattle but more sheep and pigs coming forward weekly to be used fresh as carcase meat, canned for stockpiling or put in cold store to keep the ration level.
The other way is to increase the amount of feedingstuffs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) has said, an increase in the importation and storage of feedingstuffs would do both things. It would increase the number of pigs and cattle; and, thanks to the calf subsidy and similar schemes, there are 400,000 more calves in this country than there were in 1939. If we are to maintain that big stock so that we have stock on the hoof, we must continually encourage the growing of calves instead of killing them off. That is one way—to increase the stock of meat on the hoof and organise the industry in such a way that we encourage the production of livestock and get an increasing flow of meat coming to the market so that it can be dealt with as the Government require.
There is another way in which we can stockpile, and that is by the storage of grain. Before the last war, the general cry was "Keep your grain stocks on the farm." People do not do that now. They have so many combine harvesters; the combine harvesters get the grain, which is then sent to the millers, the distillers and the brewers. It is taken off the farm straight away. I do not want to turn the clock back. I realise it is very convenient for farmers and others to get rid of their grain quickly, and in some cases it is profitable to do so: but if we are considering an emergency, we ought by price adjustments to encourage the keeping of grain on the farms.

Mr. Dye: That is done.

Captain Duncan: Not sufficiently. It is obviously not sufficient, because there

are so many more combine harvesters than there were, and so, many more people are using them. I, personally, have not used a combine and I hope I shall never do so.

Mr. Dye: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is a bit old-fashioned.

Captain Duncan: I may be, but even if I am, perhaps I am serving my country better than some of the more modern farmers. If the Government want to stockpile home-grown grain, they should encourage the keeping of grain on the farm instead of overtaxing the millers', brewers' and distillers' storage places.
There is just one other point on this question of storage, and I am not quite sure how far I shall be allowed to go with it. In order to cultivate the grain, it is necessary to have machinery; and it is no good having machinery unless we can stockpile spares.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Nugent: I should like to address my remarks to the question of storing imported wheat. The main principles of storing are, first of all, to store for stockpiling purposes the commodity which is most essential, and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that the basic food of all is bread. For that we must have wheat. We import something like two-thirds of our supply of wheat and flour, and therefore if we are to ensure that we have our daily bread in war-time we must stockpile wheat.
The second qualification for stockpiling is that the commodity concerned can conveniently be stored and easily moved in and out of the store. It is desirable to store many of the other things of which we have heard, but they may not necessarily be convenient or suitable for storage. Wheat, however, can be kept in storage for one or two years if it is in a good condition, and by modern machinery and bulk handling methods it can conveniently and easily be moved through the store.
I am interested to know whether the Minister of Food has begun to think of the stockpiling of wheat in relation to Item M in these Estimates. This is a very modest provision of £3 million. Does that include drawing up plans for this purpose? I should be interested to hear his reply. I appreciate that this cannot


be done in one day, but I should like to know if he has begun to think about it, and if so on what lines he is thinking. I have seen large grain stores in America and in Canada, and in that country they can carry pretty well a whole wheat crop. For Canada this is a storage capacity of about 12 million tons.
To provide for, say, 3 million tons of imported wheat would not be beyond the bounds of physical possibility. Three million tons is a reasonable sort of figure to consider for the purpose of stockpiling, and if the Minister were to provide for such an amount he would be stockpiling 3 million of the 3¾ million tons of wheat and flour which we import annually. Therefore, he would be covering the best part of a year's supply of imported wheat and flour, and he would ensure that in the event of war we should be able to manage without importing wheat for a period of six to nine months. I imagine that if we could be saved moving something like 300 or 400 ships in the first six or nine months of the war, it would be a strategic advantage of tremendous value to us.
It is to that end that I am addressing my remarks. The cost of building the storage would not be unduly high. It is difficult to say exactly what it would cost, but I imagine that the cost per ton to build silos and the necessary conveying machinery and so on would be certainly not more than £4 or £5 a ton, and the total cost of building the storage would be at the most something in the nature of £15 million.
Hon. Members opposite have said that it is dangerous to discuss this subject of stockpiling commodities at the moment. We normally derive our wheat from our friends in Canada, but it might be possible in an emergency to get it from the United States, and I should have thought it was not beyond the bounds of possibility to have a loan of wheat. In Canada and America they have wheat in store for most of the year. As we are all together in the Atlantic Pact, we have a common aim in the strategic sphere. It seems to me that if we were to say that it was not possible financially for us to buy this wheat now they might be willing to put their wheat in our stores. The mutual advantage which we should all have in war-time is obvious.
The stores would necessarily have to be at port side, and I realise there is a strategic danger in that they would be vulnerable to attack, but obviously they would be infinitely less vulnerable than the hundreds of ships in which we would have to bring the wheat here if war started. It is true that we might lose one or two storage places, but the main bulk of the stores would be reasonably safe. With the kind of silos which are normally used for large-scale storage and the kind of bulk conveying gear which is used in those stores, it would present no problem to pass fresh supplies from the ships to the silos and the old supplies out into the grain trucks which would carry them to the flour mills.
It seems to me that a conception of that kind is sound and practical and that it should be taken into account when we are considering what stockpiling we should do in order to protect ourselves against the event of war. I shall be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some indication of whether his Ministry have been thinking along these lines, whether they feel that the daily bread of the country is sufficiently important for its supply to be secured and whether they feel that the strategic advantage which would be derived from such a provision is sufficient to make the project worth while.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I intervene because I think there might be some misapprehension in the country as a result of what has been said by one or two hon. Members opposite about stockpiling. The hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) referred to the sum of £3 million, which is quoted in the Estimates, as a paltry sum, and it might be thought from what he said that that is all the Government are doing in this matter. In the same way, the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan) suggested that the Government had started much too late in dealing with this question and that they should have started very much earlier.
After what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), I think all hon. Members will agree that the best way to carry out stockpiling is to increase the normal agricultural production of the country, and of course this Government started on such a policy as


soon as they came into office. If, unhappily, we were to be engaged in a war—and all hon. Members hope we shall not—we should begin that war with very much bigger stockpiles of food on our own farms than those we had in 1939 when we entered a war which had been foreseen for many years.
In order to comfort hon. Members opposite, and possibly others in the country who might be misled by what has been said today, perhaps I may give some of the figures of the increased stockpiles of food which exist in this country by comparison with 1939 or, rather, by comparison with the time when we began the agricultural expansion programme. Between June, 1947, and June, 1950, the number of cattle in this country increased by over a million. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about 1939?"] I will give the figures by comparison with 1939 in a moment, but these are the figures for the last three years—and it was one of the complaints of hon. Members opposite that we had not started sufficiently early on a programme of increasing the stockpiles of food in this country.
Here are some of the stockpiles which exist in the country by comparison with 1947. The number of cattle has increased by over a million, sheep by 3¾ million, pigs by over 1,346,000, poultry by 26 million. If hon. Members like to talk in terms of meat, then since the expansion programme was started there has been an increase in the production of beef and veal by 63,000 tons, mutton and lamb by 12,500 tons, pig meat by 173,000 tons. If hon. Members wish to talk about grain crops and wheat, to which the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) referred, then I would point out that the acreage under wheat, barley, oats, mixed corn and rye is about 250,000 acres more than in 1947 and three million acres more than in 1938. In addition, the yields are very much greater; over 1½million more tons of grain were produced last harvest than in 1947. If hon. Members opposite want the direct comparison with 1939, I will give the figures for the general agricultural production of the country. The volume of net agricultural output is now over 140 per cent. of pre-war, compared with the target of a still higher figure of 150 per cent. in 1952–53.
Thus we have very much better stockpiles in the country than ever we had in

1938, precisely because of the normal expansion of the agricultural industry which has taken place, and of course that is the best kind of stockpiling which can be done. It would be quite wrong, therefore, for anyone in the country, either as a result of listening to what has been said by hon. Members opposite or of reading a report of the debate, to imagine that we were in anything like as perilous a situation as far as food stocks are concerned as we were when we began to fight alone in the war against Nazi Germany in 1939.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Can the hon. Gentleman give the figures for 1945?

Mr. Foot: It is quite true that in some commodities there were great difficulties immediately after the war. Everyone knows the reasons. We were at war for six years and at the end of the war great numbers of people all over the world were starving. This Government took a leading part in trying to feed the people who were starving and, as a result, we were not able to embark on our full agricultural expansion policy as early as we should have wished. But if any hon. Member thinks it was wrong on the part of the Government to play their full part in helping to feed the people of Germany and India who were starving, then I suggest he should think again.
Those are the facts and that is why there is a discrepancy between the figures when we compare 1945 with 1947. The fairest figures to take are those which I have taken—what has been achieved in the expansion of British agriculture since 1947 when we started on the programme. If hon. Members opposite prefer a comparison between now and 1939, bearing in mind that 1939 was a year after a series of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who still, sit on that Front Bench, had been Ministers of Agriculture, I have given it. It might also be remembered that every year those right hon. Gentlemen were Ministers of Agriculture some 10,000 workers from the British countryside packed up their work and left the land.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: All I am asking the hon. Gentleman, quite calmly, is to give either one of two things—the comparison between 1939 and 1945 or


the increase from 1945 to the present time. I should like to know the increase; I should like the information.

Mr. Foot: I shall be very happy to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the figures. I am afraid that I have not brought with me all the agricultural statistics for the last ten years and it would take a considerable time to explain to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that one of the things which happened during the war was that for obvious reasons we had to kill off a lot of cattle in the country, and that would have an effect on the figures. If he wants the figures I shall be very happy to supply them to him in detail and I shall look forward to the next speech he makes in his constituency to see whether he reads out those statistics to his constituents.
This is an important matter because it would be wrong if a scare were created throughout the country about stockpiling. It would be wrong if statements made by hon. Members opposite went out to the country to suggest that we are spending only £3 million on piling up stocks of food when—and nobody opposite can deny it—the fact is that today our stocks of food in the country would be very much better if we were to be engaged in a war than they were in 1939.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to a subject raised by the first two or three speakers on the benches opposite—sugar. They quoted some figures which had been given at an annual meeting a week or so ago by Lord Lyle on the subject of sugar stockpiling and the purchase of sugar. I think statements made by Lord Lyle on this subject should be regarded by the Government and anybody else with the gravest suspicion because the point in all the arguments which Lord Lyle was advancing on the subject was that he wished to see the purchase of sugar for this country restored to the private traders, and the figures which he gave were all purporting to support that argument.
He did not use that occasion to inform his shareholders that all the people who produce the sugar for Lord Lyle and his friends and his companies to refine are 100 per cent. in favour of maintaining these bulk purchase, long-term contract arrangements. If Lord Lyle had taken a trip across the Atlantic to the West Indies and made in Jamaica or the West

Indies generally the speech he made at the annual board meeting, he would have been howled down.
The facts are that in the past four or five years there has been a series of delegations coming to this country from the West Indies, and all asking for the maintenance of this bulk purchasing system, and, indeed, asking for an extension of the period of contract which is provided under these agreements. I certainly myself hope that the Ministry of Food will never surrender to those people on that side of the House—or, may be, to some of the elements inside the Ministry of Food itself—who may advocate an abandonment of this system. Just as it is essential to build up our stocks of food in this country, chiefly by the normal process of general agricultural production, so, I think, we can assist ourselves, in peace as in war, by the method of guaranteeing to our chief sugar producers in the West Indies the longest possible contract that we can.
Indeed, in the war itself it was found how essential it was to establish this system, because we could not have carried on our trade relations with the people in the West Indies properly at all if we had not established this system during the war. There is not one representative of the sugar producers anywhere in the West Indies who subscribes to the view put forward by Lord Lyle, or by some hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, that we should abandon this system—a system which, in fact, has given new hope to the people in the West Indies, and which, so far from being abandoned, should be extended to the fullest possible extent in the future.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. York: The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) has talked a great deal about sugar in the West Indies. I do not know very much about that part of the world, but I have always understood that one of the main leaders of the native population, Mr. Bustamente, was very much opposed to State trading in sugar.

Mr. Foot: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not like to say anything that would embarrass Mr. Bustamente. All the political leaders in the West Indies are in favour of the maintenance of this system. It would be a misrepresentation, I am sure, of Mr. Bustamente's views to


say that he is opposed to it in any sense at all.

Mr. York: If I am wrong, I apologise. [Interruption.]Shut up.

Dr. Morgan: On a point of order. Is the expression"Shut up"a Parliamentary expression?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Gentleman should not intervene unless the hon. Member gives way.

Dr. Morgan: I only asked whether the expression "Shut up" was a Parliamentary expression.

Mr. F. Harris: Ask the Minister of Food.

Mr. York: I was saying—[Interruption.]It is impossible for me to answer the hon. Member for Devonport, while the inmates of his own kennel make so much noise. I think I had better proceed with one or two other remarks. I was only prefacing what I was going to say—[Interruption]It is of no use trying to reply to the point of the hon. Gentleman. However, I do happen to know a little more about the agricultural position.

Mr. Simmons: What about the hon. Gentleman's own kennel?

Mr. York: This kennel is keeping quiet at the moment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to address his remarks to the Chair?

Mr. York: I should very much like to do that if I could calm those hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. I was going on to take up some other points which the hon. Member for Devonport made with regard to agricultural production. I agree wholeheartedly in principle that stockpiling can be done very effectively by increasing stocks on the farms, but, of course, he is entirely wrong in his history of the Government's efforts in stockpiling on the farms. In fact, agricultural production fell in this country in 1945 and in 1946, and the reason why the panic effort was made by the Government in 1946 and 1947 had nothing whatever to do with stockpiling: it was entirely because this country faced starvation owing to lack of ability on the part of the Government.

Hon Members: Oh!

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): Nonsense. Quite untrue. In order to complete the picture the hon. Gentleman is attempting to paint—some-what distortedly—will he tell us what steps his right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) took in the days of the Caretaker Government, including the withdrawal of wartime powers, and all the rest, which led to a decline in production in 1945?

Mr. York: There was undoubtedly a change of emphasis in the industry. I agree about that. I think the hon. Gentleman agrees. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes, that is a fact, and, indeed, the leaders of hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible for it.

Mr. Brown: Not in the Caretaker Government.

Mr. York: It was not the Caretaker Government. The change of emphasis took place, in fact, in 1945. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course, it did, in the February Price Review, when all these changes were put into operation. It was 1945.

Mr. Nally: The Government were not here then—not until July, 1945.

Mr. York: Hon. Members must be a little more grown up. Even the hon. Member for Bilston should be able to recollect that the Prime Minister was then the Deputy Prime Minister—in February, 1945.

Mr. Nally: I may be wrong about my dates, but if I follow the hon. Gentleman rightly, his argument is that in February, 1945, certain things were done which carried with them—I thought he was going to say—rather evil consequences; and my recollection is that the Labour Government did not come in until later in that year.

Mr. York: That was not a useful intervention. The leaders of the hon. Member's party were responsible for the decision taken in February, 1945. That is a fact. If I may proceed with the tenor of my argument—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, it is not my fault that I have not been able to do so. The real facts of the matter are—and the hon.


Member for Devonport made a statement with which I agree—that since 1947 there has been an increase of stock on the farms. But the reasons he gave forced my comment, because he knows that my interpretation is correct.
I want to come back to this figure of £3 million, because it does strike me that the House is entitled to an explanation of why it has been selected. I do hope that the Parliamentary Secretary is going to give us some reassurance on the matter, because obviously by putting forward a figure like this there is inevitably created an impression in the mind of the country that that is all that is to be done. Obviously, a great deal more than that has got to be done. The perturbation is increased by the fact that during the whole of 1950 in many important commodities we were living on our stocks. That means that those stocks have got to be replaced. Therefore, I ask categorically this question, Is it really true that they only got the idea that we had to pile stocks in January this year? I give the Government a month in which to produce the necessary Supplementary Estimates to present to the House. It seems to me that the Government only started to think about this in January, 1951.
I wish to discuss where the Government intend to store the piles of food which are to be stocked. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food and I know something about the storage capacity of the country. He and I sat on the Estimates Committee which went into this matter; not in great detail, but certainly with all the main knowledge which one ought to have on the matter. I understand that today the available storage space in the country is not much more than in 1939. Further, he will remember that in the report of the Estimates Committee, we stated that there were then 63 aerodromes and, I think, 48 modern cold stores available. A considerable amount of that accommodation obviously will not be available today and I consider it would be helpful to know just how many of those aerodromes would become available when our stockpiling reaches a size which will really effect an improvement in our position.
I want to know how we are to stockpile. First we have to start to re-build the stocks which we ran down in 1950. We have to re-build our meat stocks even

to give us an adequate ration. We have to replace at least one-third of our wheat stocks and at least one quarter of our tea stocks. Those are commodities in which the discrepancy is greatest. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues are addressing themselves to the building up of those particular stocks. It will be extremely difficult to do that today. World prices are running heavily against us and the longer we wait the worse that position will become.
As I see the position, either we have to pay these fantastic world prices or else we shall not stockpile at all. As I understand it, the stockpiling contemplated under this Vote amounts to one and one-third of a week's supply of wheat for the country; and for the whole of the available money we are voting we could obtain seven weeks' supply of dried eggs. Those are two very valuable commodities in cases of emergency but obviously this is of extremely little importance compared with the problem which concerns us all.
We shall have great difficulty in bringing into this country the necessary piles of stocks. The point I am endeavouring to make is emphasised by this constant succession of disputes and quarrels with our suppliers. I have here a list of disputes which are either in progress at the moment or, since my information was gleaned, have been settled—but I believe they are all in progress at the moment. There is a dispute with. Holland over eggs and bacon; with Australia over butter; with New Zealand over butter and mutton; with Canada over bacon and cheese; with Denmark over butter and perhaps bacon—I am not quite sure about that—and with the Argentine over meat. That is a list of quarrels and disputes we are having with our suppliers which obviously is affecting all the channels of supply and preventing these stocks coming forward in proper and adequate quantities into this country.
I regard with some degree of perturbation the problem of how we are to get stockpiles into this country at all. I want to know what we are going to pile—I do not know whether that is the right expression or the right way to put it. We hear a certain amount about wheat and I would reinforce the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) that the real primary commodity is wheat. We ought to stock large quantities. Not only would we get bread


but, more important still, supplies of feedingstuffs for cattle. There is the question of coarse grains and it is very alarming to me, as one who is mainly interested in the agricultural industry, to see that our stocks in this particular line are run down.
In common with other hon. Members I would emphasise the importance of stockpiling on the farm. If more food stocks were obtained and brought into this country, if the rations to the farmers were increased, that would result in stockpiling in three separate ways. First by increasing the amount of feedingstuffs in the internal distribution system, which in itself would be a considerable amount of tonnage; second, there would be more stored on the farms as opposed to being inside the animals; third, which I do not think has been mentioned, if we are able to purchase a considerable quantity of feedingstuffs the head of stock on the farm can be increased. If a cut in feedingstuffs becomes necessary and it is not possible to buy because of an emergency, a considerable quantity of livestock of all sorts would have to be killed, but this would carry us over the difficult and dangerous interregnum between peace and war. Enough has been said to show how deeply concerned we are with the efforts of the Government to get on with this job, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will have something to say to allay our obvious anxiety.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Snow: I would address myself to a relatively minor item in these Supplementary Estimates, namely, our contribution to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation and the reason why we ought to subscribe greatly to any sort of organisation which will prevent, or help to prevent, the abuse of the world supply of food which did exist before the war.
I remember during a recent debate on the Groundnut Scheme in which the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crook shank) became rather exuberant, trying to catch your eye, Sir, on many occasions, and failing. I suppose I am—and I say this with humility—one of the few people, if indeed there are any others in this House, who have worked in East Africa. I say

"worked" as opposed to "visited" East Africa. I well remember my experience, or rather the very sad experience of the people who ran the estates in Tanganyika in the early 'thirties.
I well remember the time when in Tanga, Zanzibar and Dar-es-Salaam estates were stocked high with the very commodities that this country did not seem to have the opportunity of importing. I well remember going into "godowns" in Dar-es-Salaam and seeing sisal stocked high at a time when the sisal producers not only could not get an economic price for their sisal, but could not even get anybody to buy it; and the same thing applied to tea, coffee and sugar. If I might digress for a moment I remember going—did the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) wish to say something?

Mr. Pickthorn: I was only wondering whether the hon. Gentleman was going to digress into the Vote.

Mr. Snow: We are used to the sub-moronic interventions of the hon. Member. His well known charm entitles him to make them but he must not overdo it. I am addressing myself to subhead F of the Vote.
I remember the time when I visited a tea estate in Tanganyika. As I went through the main gateway, I saw a European working with a large number of Africans. I thought "he is getting on with the job." I motored along to the bungalow and there saw another European. It was about 11 o'clock in the morning, and he was sitting in a long chair with a long drink beside him and having an easy time. We got talking in a friendly way, and I said, "Things are not so good in the world; don't you think you might be doing a job with your colleague?" He said, "You don't think that I pay that man do you? This month I employ him and next month he employs me. We don't pay each other because we cannot afford to." That was a situation before the war which was characteristic of the world. It had nothing to do with the Tory Party. If there is any possibility of trying to organise the distribution of surplus commodities in the world, I think that we should support it.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: Earlier this afternoon I had no intention of inter-


vening in the debate, but the speech of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) touched on a point which is so important that I should like to follow it up. I must, however, first refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Devon-port (Mr. Foot). Several things that he said have already been dealt with, but one or two have not. He said that during the war the system of bulk purchase from the West Indies was very valuable to us, and he implied that it was the only possible policy in time of peace. He is profoundly wrong. The system of bulk purchase was necessary during the war solely because of war conditions and the difficulty of working the convoy system without it. It is silly to argue that what is necessary in war is necessarily right in peace. If hon. Members opposite who take that view thought the matter out, they would see that none of the conditions are equal, and that the convoy problem was one of the best reasons for bulk purchase.

Mr. Foot: I am not suggesting that because we did it in war we should do it in peace. I think that it was valuable to us in war. As the hon. Member seeks to demolish my argument, can he tell me why the tea producers and workers in the West Indies are strongly in favour of maintaining this system?

Mr. Maclay: I will not carry on with that argument because I do not think that would be in order. I will read the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow morning and find out exactly the points which the hon. Gentleman made. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that it is a misleading statement. That is the kind of thing that is said on every platform in the country during the weekends, and it makes one really sick, because it is just nonsense.
The second thing which I have to say about the speech of the hon. Member for Devonport is that I felt a certain sympathy with him in his struggling with his ancestral difficulties about free trade. He was talking about things that had happened since 1945 compared with pre-war. It was pointed out by an hon. Member on this side that what has happened since 1945 has been a continuation of what was started by the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson). A lot of things have changed since 1939, including the views of the Labour Party, who

before 1939 opposed for years any attempt to protect the position of the British farmer.

Mr. Foot: I am not a free trader. I left the Liberal Party because I did not believe in free trade, amongst other things. When I left the Liberal Party, 1 at least did not do what the hon. Gentleman has done, and that is try to hang on to the name.

Mr. Maclay: May I say this, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because I think it is relevant and of interest: Hon. Members opposite must realise that I have not in any way deserted the principles of the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party itself is now well away from free trade and precisely in the same position as I am on the subject.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman made the statement—I do not know on what authority—that the Labour Party before the war had no policy for protecting the British farmer. Is he not aware that the present policy of this Government and the policy of the Coalition Government in regard to the agriculture of this country was framed by the Labour Party many years before the war.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that we are getting a little away from the Vote.

Mr. Maclay: I apologise if I have gone astray, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I think there was some justification for it.
On the question of saving shipping by the emergency storing of food, the hon. Member for Guildford made the case clear, and I hope that we shall be given an undertaking as to what are the long-term views of the Government. I realise that in the short term there are no difficulties about it with the existing sources of supply. I think that there is a real possibility of achieving something by the general suggestion made that the Canadian Government and other Governments on the other side of the Atlantic might be prepared to store on this side of the Atlantic. I would remind the House that on the outbreak of war in 1939, for a variety of reasons it was necessary to divert shipping at short notice to the St. Lawrence to bring in grain, because it was feared that we were going to run too low. That diversion


caused desperate trouble at the time when the convoy system was not operating completely, and heavy losses of tonnage resulted. That is a frightfully important point.
The main thing is that in all such matters, from the shipping point of view, the Minister of Food or the Parliamentary Secretary or the Department should really be in touch with the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Transport to ensure that there is co-ordination in the effort that is now being made—I will not comment whether too soon or too late—to build up reserve stocks. Is that being done by each Department regardless of other Departments? We have evidence of that kind of thing happening in the last six months. I have only to mention coal. There action was being taken by one Department without any reference to the other Departments. In view of that, it is quite impossible to have confidence in the present administration and to believe that they are doing a thing even like this sensibly and wisely.
In the last Parliament, I raised the question of the Minister of Transport being a permanent member of the Committee of Defence that was being set up, because I visualised then that this kind of situation might arise in the future. The Government would not agree to that. The Minister of Transport is not a permanent member of the Committee of Defence, and we have not the slightest idea who is really responsible for seeing that there is a co-ordinated defence policy on reserve stocks. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us whether his Department is undertaking this on its own, with only casual consultation with other Departments; or whether the matter is to be carefully worked out as a deliberate policy for which the Minister of Defence must ultimately be responsible?
That is why I have to raise this matter in this debate, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. If one tries to do it in a defence debate, one has not a hope of getting an answer, because it involves a Department like the Ministry of Food. I hope that we can really get to the bottom of this matter. It will be very valuable if we can be satisfied that this is part of a co-ordinated effort which is being handled carefully

by one Minister, but it must also be a co-ordinated effort and part of a deliberate policy and not depend on chance efforts according to the enthusiasm of individual Ministers.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Keenan: I have been encouraged to speak in this debate because of what has been said by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) and by other Members opposite. I think that a wrong impression is being created on the question of storage. Members have been speaking of the total amount of stockpiling, which to my mind is quite wrong, as this is only a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Turton: If the hon. Member refers to the original Estimate, he will see that the amount for this purpose is nil.This Supplementary Estimate, which covers £3 million, amounts therefore to a new Vote.

Mr. Keenan: I think it will be agreed that £3 million does not represent the total amount of stockpiling to be undertaken. For instance, it can only provide a small amount of our meat supplies.
As I was saying, I am somewhat concerned about the statements which have been made on the question of storage, particularly by the hon. Member for Renfrew. West, who, like myself, has an interest in shipping, although from a different angle. The impression has been given that we have an unlimited amount of storage capacity. It will be remembered that at the time when some extraordinary transactions were going on in the 'grain trade, ships had to be used for storage purposes.

Mr. Maclay: The question of storage was dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent). I do not think the hon. Member was in his place when my hon. Friend was speaking.

Mr. Keenan: The hon. Member seemed to suggest that we have unlimited storage space. Complaints are also made about the condition of commodities in store. Sugar is certainly not a very satisfactory commodity to store on the dockside in Liverpool and London, although I appreciate that rat infestation at aerodromes and places of that kind is something of a problem. I hope that we shall be told


what storage space is available in the country for the storage of grains. The hon. Member for Guildford seemed to suggest that there was unlimited capacity.

Mr. Nugent: I am sorry that I missed the opening remarks of the hon. Member. I did say that storage space would have to be built, and I explained at some length how it should be built and what the cost would be. I attempted to show that it Would be of good value to the country to provide such storage space.

Mr. Keenan: It should be remembered that probably the most costly building, in steel and cement, is the building of a silo. During the last 30 years I have seen two of the most modern built in Liverpool. We could not go in for this sort of building without interfering with our capital investment programme. It would mean knocking off at least 100,000 houses out of the 300,000 houses we require.
The fact of the matter is that we now have less cold storage than we had before the war. I think I am right in saying that in Liverpool the percentage of storage available is probably between 10 and 25 per cent. less than it was before the war. I know of storage capacity that was knocked out during the war which has not been replaced, and could only be replaced at the expense of the housing programme. The impression should not go out that things are brighter than they are. Suggestions have been made that we should use some of the old country houses for storing these commodities we are stockpiling. That will only mean that we shall be getting more complaints about the condition of the goods.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: The hon. Member obviously has a great deal of knowledge about storage. Has he considered the vast range of goods that can be stored under water, as is done successfully in many countries, such as in France and Switzerland? Underwater storage would save a great deal of space in warehouses.

Mr. Keenan: I think the hon. Member will agree that the sort of commodities we are discussing today do not lend themselves to that kind of storage. If we put them under the Mersey they will not be much good when divers bring them to the surface. I shall listen with interest to anything else that is said on this subject of storage. There is no need for me

to speak of all the difficulties in providing more storage space. This is a matter that we have to approach from the commonsense point of view. We must look at it from the point of view of the total programme that is confronting us, and not merely from the point of view of stockpiling.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Crouch: I wish to confine my remarks to Item E, and that is in regard to the £4¼ million for the British Sugar Corporation. Both during the war and since, we have been able to produce from our own soil a sugar ration of 8 oz. per head for the population. The sugar produced in this country has been mixed with the imported sugar, and it has been necessary therefore to give assistance to the Corporation, which has been in existence since the industry commenced.
There is a great deal of misunderstanding about what happens to the moneys that are handed over to the Corporation. The position is that between 1939 and 1948 an additional sum of £45 million above that which has been received by the Corporation from the Treasury has been paid to the Treasury. In view of the fact that we have had the largest crop ever grown in this country, the Treasury will be receiving a greater sum from the industry than it has ever had, when we come to the end of the season. If we take the average as £4½ million a year in excess payment, we find that the Treasury are still £250,000 in hand.
I should like to say a word about the future of the beet sugar industry. The question was asked in this House about building up a beet sugar factory in the south of England. Steps should be taken to expand further the factory space which we have in this country. I understand during the year 1917 the then Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, was considerably more worried about the amount of sugar available for the people than about the amount of wheat. Greater attention should be given at this moment to building up our plants so that we can produce an even greater amount of sugar than we are doing today.
There is another side to the production of sugar in this country, and that is the by-products which we get which are very valuable feedingstuffs for our livestock. These things must be taken into consideration when one looks at a Vote of


this sort. I hope that as a result of my few remarks I have been able to remove some of the misunderstandings in this country about the beet sugar industry, and the oft used statement that it is subsidised, and receives more from the Government than it gives. The position is exactly the reverse.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: When the present Minister of Food took office, he inherited a full larder. One of the things which have been happening during the past year is that we have been living upon our stocks. I am not going to go over again the figures, which my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) gave to the House or which have been given in a recent issue of the "Economist," but every Member of the House will know that during the past year we have been living upon stocks. Even if that policy of living upon stocks was justified at the beginning and right to the middle of the last year when there were grounds for a belief that we were in for a time when the trend of world prices would be downward, there could be no justification for continuing the policy of living on stocks after the invasion of Korea.
Then two things at once became apparent, first of all that we were entering a period, probably a long period, in which the danger of war would be definitely nearer than it was before; and secondly, we were in for a period when the trend of world prices could no longer be downwards but must inevitably be upwards. If the Government from the time of the invasion of Korea had increased sufficiently the prices they were prepared to pay as their current contracts came up for price revision, then this country would have been saved the necessity for stockpiling at the present moment.
In matters of this kind we can learn valuable lessons from the past. All this has happened before so often in the history of this land, and if we look back to the past we can see what lessons are to be drawn. How did we tackle a very similar problem in the years before the recent world war? The Food (Defence Plans) Department was created in December, 1937, and although it suffered from inferiority of status and from a dual

responsibility—on the one hand to the Board of Trade and on the other to the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence—it set to work quietly without ostentation and fuss, encouraging private traders to build up stocks and stockpiles in this country.
Let us see what happened in regard to our bread supplies. The policy of building up stocks, which started in the case of wheat in 1938, was so successful that during the war our stocks of flour and of wheat were built up to about 15 weeks supply. From 1946 to 1948 they averaged 10 weeks' supply. Today our stocks have been allowed to fall seriously below this level. With wheat at around four weeks' supply, and flour, taking imported and home-grown flour together, at about three and a half weeks' supply, we have a reserve of only half the supply which we found to be necessary in time of war. This is a very serious deficiency indeed and one which no currency problem and no shipping problem ought to prevent us from making good at the earliest possible moment.
One of the sources from which we should like to obtain wheat is the Dominion of Canada, and because of the poor harvest in certain parts of that Dominion we shall be under strong pressure to take our imports in the form of flour. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell the House that he will take our imports from Canada in the shape of whole grain, which is easier to handle, which is cheaper, and, above all, which ensures that we have a high proportion of milling offal for the use of our own livestock.
If we stockpiled wheat, as we did before the 1939–45 war, it was not necessary for us to stockpile meat. There was no stockpiling then because private enterprise traders carried large reserves of stocks both in the countries of origin and in this country. The pipelines leading from our main sources of supply all over the world were never empty. Chilled beef arrived from South America with the regularity of clockwork, and frozen meat came to this country in accordance with an accurately forecast demand.
In August, 1939, this was the position as far as I have been able to ascertain it. We had imported frozen meat in store in the United Kingdom to the extent of 57,500 tons. Phased arrivals of meat


during the month of August came to 53,100 tons, during the month of September 51,800 tons, and during the month of October 41,100 tons. Since these months are the months of the heaviest home killings, there was no anxiety at all about the short-term future of our meat supplies. Moreover, there were very substantial reserves in the countries of origin, including a reserve of 50,000 tons of mutton in New Zealand, which happened to be in excess of the 1939 quota and which was available for us to ship at any time.
How much meat should we store in this country? The answer depends upon three factors. It must depend upon the level of meat consumption, upon the level of home killings, and thirdly, upon the international situation. With an eight-penny ration of carcase meat, our weekly consumption is about 16,000 tons. We cannot hope for any great increase in our home supplies until the month of June. As for the international situation, if it were not pretty grim we would not be talking about stockpiling food this evening. It would be prudent, taking all these factors into consideration, to store 150,000 tons of meat in these islands, with 100,000 tons as a minimum. At the present moment it is doubtful whether we hold one-fifth of that necessary minimum.
Now I pass from meat to a kindred commodity, bacon. I believe that the breakdown of our negotiations for the supply of bacon from Canada has a very serious defence implication. Under the Ottawa Agreements, Canada was given an assured outlet and an attractive price inducement to send us as much bacon as for the time she was able to do. In 1931, exports to the United Kingdom were only of the order of 98,000 cwts. In 1939, they had increased to 1,660,000 cwts., and when Europe was overrun by the boche,Canada stepped up her production and increased her exports to us, in our need, progressively from 3 million cwts. in 1940 to 6 million cwts. in 1944.
What is the position today? Last year, Denmark sent us more bacon than we produced ourselves, and we actually bought more bacon from Poland than we bought from Canada. I know that Canada is a hard currency country, but there is no doubt that Lease-Lend and Mutual Aid helped our imports of bacon from Canada from 1940 to 1945. Poland is behind the Iron Curtain. Denmark, how-

ever much we want to trade with that country, is geographically vulnerable. I beg the Minister to see that we get going again with Canada, as a defence measure if for no other reason, and to see that our imports of bacon from there are started once again.
Let me talk for one minute about dehydration, which is immensely important when we are talking about the stockpiling of food. I am told by the experts, although I do not know it of my own knowledge, that 1,000 tons of cabbages take up 140,000 cubic feet in the raw state but that they take up only 3,000 cubic feet if they are dried and compressed. Dehydration is immensely important, and if we are to do what we ought to do in the way of storing and stockpiling food, we have to have tinplate. We recently had a debate about that, and I am not going to say more about it than that last year the preserved food industry in this country used 200,000 tons of tinplate to can 600,000 tons of food.
It is not easy to convert a reduction in the supplies of tinplate to the growers and canners into tons of fruit and vegetables which canners will be unable to can or to buy from the growers, because the ratio in respect of different fruits and vegetables is naturally variable. As a rough guide I should say that every ton of tinplate denied to the canners means that three tons of fruit and vegetables will go uncanned. On this basis we could have canned more than 300,000 tons of home-grown food with the tinplate which was exported for food packing to non-Commonwealth countries during last year, and the amount that we sent to Argentina alone in the past two years would have been sufficient for us to can not less than 150,000 tons of meat.
So it is with almost every commodity that one can think of. Faced with the necessity to build up stocks, we have had to sit by and watch what were formerly adequate reserves drawn upon without sufficient replacement. Can we retrieve the position? With wheat, yes, I think we can—at a price—although shipping is going to be very difficult indeed. There are some things that money cannot buy, and it seems very doubtful now whether we shall be able to secure enough carcase meat, enough bacon and ham, and enough butter and cheese to do more than maintain a reasonable ration scale.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin: I support what has just been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, North, and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) about dehydrated vegetables, and the shortage of tinplate. It might be out of order, but it is important in stockpiling. The Minister of Agriculture was asked what he proposed to do to encourage the acreage of horticulture. The one thing to encourage production in horticulture is to make more tinplate available, so that when we get surplus cabbages, fruit, and what not they can be canned and put on the shelf, ready for the day when fresh supplies are not available. Unless something is done to protect horticulture and use the surplus on the year's production, that class of goods will decrease.
I want to take up the question of the stockpiling of food, not in silos at the ports nor in cold storage. I want to reinforce the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, North, and Mearns, who called attention to the fact that the best place to stockpile food is on the farm. I want to call attention to the vulnerability of this country. If war comes, it will not be by the old-fashioned way of giving warning and withdrawing ambassadors. We may be faced with another Pearl Harbour, but before that Pearl Harbour our potential enemy, who is reputed to have a thousand long-range fast-moving submarines, will have submarines planted all over the world in the most likely spots on our lifelines. In other words, when the balloon goes up, those submarines will be in such a position that they can sweep our ships off the seas.
If that happens, what food reserves shall we have in this country? It would be interesting to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary can give us any idea of how long we can feed our people on the food that we have in the country at the present moment. I believe it would be rather startling if an accurate figure could be given. In three years we are to spend something like £4,700 million upon armaments and the training of soldiers. That is not the slightest good unless we have the food to feed the people, and I suggest that a little diversion of some of that vast sum of money towards the reclamation of our waste land would be of immense value. Not only would it be

valuable for defence purposes in war-time but it would not be wasted as some or our armaments may be wasted if war does not come. We should reclaim that land whether we go to war or not. If we bring that land back into cultivation and produce more from it, it will be of lasting benefit to us.
To say that it is impossible is just nonsense. In many cases that land was producing hardy stock 80 years ago. Something like 11 million acres of land is designated as rough grazing in Britain today and it is admitted that at least five million acres can be brought back into production. Responsible people say that one million acres of land brought back into production would be capable of producing 250,000 store cattle, and that would mean an immense amount of meat for us. Some of that land could be made to grow corn.
It may not be appreciated that in Great Britain today we have only half the acreage under wheat that we had 80 years ago. Eighty years ago we had to rely on hand labour and forced ploughing, and in these days of machinery we ought to aim at a much bigger arable acreage than we have. Farmers generally will fight against that, but we ought to do it. I see hundreds of thousands of acres about the country which were not even used for arable purposes during the war. When I make a journey through the Cotswolds, I see field after field which has never been ploughed up. That land ought to be tackled and we ought to grow more food here not only for defence purposes in the event of war but to save us from starvation.
In regard to the suggestion that we should grow more corn in this country, I would add that we should stockpile it on the farm. One or two hon. Members have made that point. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), did so. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) also did so, and he gave us some interesting comparisons. He spoke of the position in 1939 compared with that in 1951 and said what a great job the Socialist Party had done. He should do a little more research, and go back to 1929–31, when 750,000 acres of land went out of cultivation and 55,000 agricultural labourers left the land. Some figures can be made to prove anything, but those are the facts of what happened


during the time of the Socialist Government between 1929–31.
The way to keep the grain and the meat of this country distributed is to have differential prices. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West, made that point, and I made it in the defence debate last autumn. To an overwhelming extent today we are threshing out our grain on the field with the combine harvester. If farmers can sell the grain they do so, because it is then out of the way and free from pests. The Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture should get together and so arrange their prices that it will pay farmers to store their grain, when they have threshed it, on their own farms. That would do away with the expensive building of silos. Many farm buildings are not fully occupied. If attention were paid to them and the walls were reinforced, some of the old-fashioned buildings could be converted into silos for the storage of grain at very little expense and it would be possible to keep the grain free from interference by pests, which is one of our biggest troubles.
The same argument applies to our livestock. We cannot build sufficient cold storage accommodation for all the food necessary to feed this country in time of emergency, but we could cultivate our land and have that stock in every quarter of Great Britain. It would be safe from the enemy and it would be a reserve to be called upon when we wanted it. Sooner or later the country will have to face this. I beg the Government to look at the matter and give it very serious attention. Instead of building new towns when we already have more towns than we can possibly support in the future, let the Government build decent cottages in the countryside, where the hardy men and women who have made this country a great nation——

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I right in believing that the debate should be confined to the Estimates of the Food Ministry and should not cover Estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture? Will not a debate on the Estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture take place separately later on? I submit that the bulk of the discussion which has taken place in the last half-hour is out of order on these Estimates.

Mr. Speaker: No. As a matter of fact, I was taking notice of what the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) was saying about rural cottages. I thought that that was rather outside the scope of the debate, but surely storage on the farm rather than in another place was all right. However, I was taking note of what he was saying about rural cottages.

Mr. Baldwin: The point about rural cottages is that we cannot reclaim a million acres of land and bring it into production unless we get the labour, and, if we are to do that, we must have decent cottages in which the men can live.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Frederick Willey): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Under this Vote we could not, of course, build the rural cottages.

Mr. Baldwin: Exactly, but it has to do with stockpiling. If we do not build the cottages and produce the grain, we cannot stockpile it. These things are all wrapped up together. The trouble with all these things is that there is no co-operation between the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture. Each one in his own Department is pulling for his own ends and there is no co-operation. I hope that both Ministries will get together and do what they must both know to be right for this country.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: I wish to confine my brief remarks to questions of storage alone, and to make an original suggestion, though I would not go so far as you, Mr. Speaker, have done by your remark-about storage "in another place." I hardly think that another place would appreciate it if we turned them into a granary or silo.

Mr. Speaker: I did not mean another place in this Palace.

Mr. Fletcher: Before the last war there was formed a Committee, called "Mr. Bunn's Committee" from the name of the official in charge of it, to study the whole question of the storage of foodstuffs and other commodities in this country. I served on that Committee. I well remember that we went into very considerable detail as to how


storage could best be carried out in relation to the facts that we knew about the form of warfare that we might expect. I well remember how very wrong we were in a great many of the ideas that we had.
Since then we have learnt that many places which looked to be the best and most natural for storage, such as harbours and ports with their long rows of warehouses beside them, are probably the most dangerous. In considering the storage of foodstuffs in this country, we must start from the beginning again, and think in terms of the sort of warfare, about which we may have some vague idea and which we may be able to predict from present scientific knowledge, that we are likely to experience.
That brings me to a point which I have put to senior Members of His Majesty's Government over the last three years. Under-water storage should be studied much more carefully. It would not be perfectly applicable to all foodstuffs but, if we could clear warehouses and other storage places by putting under water some commodities, it would clear storage areas which at present are impossibly congested. This has been done in France and Switzerland, and should be tried by experiment in this country. Any goods that are baled under pressure, as are some canned goods, fibres, metals, and so on, are suitable for this form of storage. In the last war disasters took place because of the over-concentration of storage in vulnerable areas which one can hardly contemplate without shuddering On two nights during the war we lost huge quantities of agricultural products, such as hops and rum. I do not believe we have ever recovered from the loss of the hops. There is no sign of it.
I would like His Majesty's Government to get rid of such words as "planning" but to think imaginatively, putting people in who have not spent all their lives thinking of the ordinary method of storage in warehouses which is now, unfortunately, too vulnerable for most purposes. They should think of this country as a series of lakes surrounded by water where under-water storage could easily be done. They might get all available old vessels, fill them, sink them, pump air into them and bring them up again when wanted. They are perfect

under-water media. It needs efforts by the Ministers concerned to overcome prejudice and dislike of a rather novel system of storage, but it is well worth considering because it has been proved by the Swiss and the French that a good many things can be stored in that way, including high explosives. A great deal of ammunition can be stored under water. The new spraying techniques developed in America would undoubtedly be at our disposal.
I urge the Government, who pay tribute to science, to take a scientific and new view of storage. They will find many categories of goods which they have not thought of as being suitable for this form of storage, thereby having them readily available after an emergency or a heavy bombing. It would surprise the Government, and others who have not studied this form of storage, particularly in regard to food for which we have not enough of the normal type of storage available——

Mr. Harold Davies: We have all been interested in the expert knowledge which the hon. Gentleman has put at the disposal of the House. May I ask whether, if we are thinking in terms of storage under water, the possibility of destruction through radio activity as a result of the atom bomb will be greater than ever? The results made public after the Bikini tests, which showed that a harbour is radio-active, make it silly to talk of submarine warfare, and storage under water if it is at the coast.

Mr. Fletcher: May I try to help the hon. Gentleman? If an atom bomb fell in this country in such a way as to render under-water storage radio-active, it would have destroyed totally huge quantities of stuff stored on dry land. After the radioactive period under water had passed, however, a considerable proportion of that stuff would be usable, whereas that on land in the vicinity of the bomb would have been destroyed completely.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I shall refer shortly to Subhead M because this is obviously the matter which has retained the interest of the House, it being the first instalment of the stockpiling plan. For that reason it is an opportunity to get an idea from the Government, not only of their intentions, but of their estimate


of being able to fulfil their intentions under the existing methods, and to what extent they will adapt their methods to the new objectives.
There are two ways in which they could achieve the objective of stockpiling. One is by increased purchases over and above what was purchased last year; the other is by reduced consumption. I notice that there is a saving on trading services of nearly £5 million. I take it this means that instead of the estimate of £410 million for the ceiling subsidy, we are now to have £405 million as that ceiling for the year. This may mean that subsidised foods, instead of being consumed, are being stockpiled. In that way a saving is made over the anticipated estimated expenditure. It may be that in the same way next year the Government intend to cut down on the extent of the rations we have had in this year, thereby make available extra food for stockpiling.
Of course, the effect of that on the Estimates would be that we would have a reduction in the loss on trading services—that is, on the subsidy—and an increase in the charge for the purchase and storage of emergency reserves. It is quite plain that it would not be possible to achieve the estimated expenditure for the storage of emergency reserves in that way. Therefore, it is quite clear that they do anticipate being able to get extra supplies in the following year. So far as this £3 million is concerned, no doubt the House will wish to know how far the Government have been able to get extra supplies so far over and above their original intentions and contracts. That is important, and I should like to refer first to sugar.
For example, is it for that purpose that the Government have entered into negotiations with Cuba? We were told last summer that the sugar required for the home market was 2½million tons per annum and that 500,000 tons were to come from home sources. Of the rest, 90 per cent. was to come from Commonwealth sources. This was not to be achieved at once but was to be an objective. That would leave the 250,000 tons for which negotiations are being entered into with Cuba. Is that the intention? If so, that would close the sugar market altogether and we would only be able to purchase from the Dominions and from Cuba. It may be that these negotiations

are aimed at an immediate, once-for-all purchase of 250,000 tons, which might account to some extent for the additional estimate.
Sugar, of course, is particularly easy to stockpile. I submit to the hon. Gentleman that the first and most obvious place to stockpile is in the sugar bins of the people. If he could take it off the ration and so enable people to hold their own stockpiles in their own houses, we would get the best method of storing and, what is more, a perfect distribution of reserves.

Mr. Dye: Not a perfect system of storage.

Mr. Macpherson: There must be few people now who would not be willing and able to lay in a supply of sugar if given the opportunity, and that would be one of the most valuable ways of stockpiling. There might be at first a sugar spending "spree," but after that people would obviously be prepared to store it for themselves. After that, of course, it would be possible to stockpile, and in speaking of the stockpiling of sugar I should like to refer briefly to the payment to the British Sugar Corporation which arises, I believe, from a very much larger crop than was anticipated.
I should like the hon. Gentleman to reply to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch), because while recognising the need for sugar production in this country, to maintain an industry that is already well established, it is important to hold in balance the relative advantages of producing in this country and of importing from the Colonies, bearing in mind in particular that many of the West Indian Colonies rely almost entirely upon the sugar crop.
Looking beyond sugar, if we are to increase our purchases, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say in what way he will be able to do this. The great disadvantage of operating on a contract for export surpluses is that we never know exactly how much we shall get; we are getting what is left over after the producing country has taken what it requires, and the more prosperous is the producing country, the less will be the amount available for export. Where we take the entire exportable surplus of a country, as in the case of the Dominions, it is


extremely difficult to see how at present we shall be able to get increased supplies unless the Dominions can step up their production. I should like the hon. Gentleman, therefore, to say what plans are being made to bring about such an increase. We know of the Queensland scheme, but what other plans are being made to enable us to purchase more meat and other supplies of that kind?
I understand that in order to maintain and to encourage production, we have already had to resort to retrospective price increases on, for example, lamb from New Zealand. The normal long-term contracts provide for a maximum increase of 7½per cent. per annum. That, apparently, was not enough, and therefore an increase of 5½ per cent. had to be made on purchases already effected. That is one of the things which happens in the case of the Dominions when we take their entire exportable surpluses, but in other cases, when making minimum contracts with the possibility of making purchases over and above the contract figure, we are in effect again buying the exportable surplus after the country has exported more advantageously to other countries.
In a time of rising prices it is extremely difficult to overcome this problem. If we make a contract for a determinate amount at a determinate price, someone will immediately enter the market and bid above that price and so prevent our getting more than the minimum which has been agreed upon. That, I believe, is what happened with the bacon contracts with Holland, when the remainder went to Germany. It is the sort of difficulty which is liable to be encountered, and I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman will give the House an indication of how he is going to adjust his purchasing methods to enable stockpiling to be possible at all. The present indications are that, so far from our being able to get more of what we require, we shall probably get less.

7.24 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Frederick Willey): We have had an interesting debate, at a fairly low temperature, and I will try to avoid raising it at this stage. Of the three substantial points which have been raised, I had better deal with the first two and then with the major point which has been raised. The hon. Member for Thirsk and

Malton (Mr. Turton), asked for an explanation about the sum relating to the British Sugar Corporation. He asked also for an additional figure about the total Excise Duty that it was anticipated would be recovered on the sugar. I am told that this figure is about £2⅓ million.
In turning to the British Sugar Corporation, I shall not endeavour to explain the basis for the deficiency payment. I am told that it is based on a formula devised by two senior wranglers, without whose assistance I should have some difficulty in explaining it to the House. Quite simply, however, the basis of the payment is that it represents, broadly speaking, the difference between the cost of raw sugar made from beet and the cost of imported raw cane sugar. It is for that very good reason that I find it impossible to follow the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch). It is generally recognised that for strategic and other purposes it is worth while subsidising the sugar industry.
What has happened this year is that we have had a record campaign. When the last factory closed at Cantley, the whole of the record crop of over 5,200,000 tons of beet had been delivered to the factories and processed. That is a record harvest by over 700,000 tons.

Captain Crookshank: Hear, hear.

Mr. Willey: That means, if we think of one of the important reasons for our relying upon this industry, that through this record harvest we save 80 million dollars. We can be proud of this industry and what it has achieved this year. Apart from the record output, the average yield in tons per acre is higher than we have ever before attained. In consequence of this success and notwithstanding the improved efficiency of the Corporation in dealing with the throughput, so much greater is the deficiency payment which has to be made to the Corporation.
I was asked also about Subhead F, which relates to the Food and Agriculture Organisation. The explanation is quite simple, and I am obliged to the hon. Member who asked me to give it. We normally pay our contribution to the Food and Agriculture Organisation by instalments. This year, the F.A.O. have been transferring their headquarters to Rome, and a special appeal was made


to the member states to pay their contributions as closely together as possible. Therefore, we have paid our two contributions together and so have assisted the Organisation during the period in which they are transferring their headquarters to Rome.
The major subject of the debate was stockpiling. Inevitably, hon. Members have spoken in the dark, and I am afraid, as I am sure they themselves would anticipate, that they will remain in the dark. It has not been the policy of the Ministry of Food to reveal their stock position. The Ministry are prudent traders and it would be most unwise for them to do that. Quite apart from that, everyone will realise that the last thing that could be expected from the Ministry would be a disclosure of their strategic stockpile. Therefore, I must deal generally with the debate and avoid being trapped into giving either of those figures.
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton referred to a very interesting article in the "Economist." As he knows, that is an article in which the "Economist" said, correctly, that
The cost of food, as measured by the official index of retail prices, rose by only 4 per cent. while the prices of primary commodities (food and raw materials) traded on the American markets rose by 50 per cent.
It went on to say:
The British consumer escaped—last year at any rate—the major burdens inflicted on the rest of the world by inflation. He ate more, but in doing so he seems to have cost the Exchequer no more in subsidies than the stated limit of £410 million.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: But the Parliamentary Secretary will go on to say that the reason was, as the "Economist points out, that we were living on stocks.

Mr. Willey: No. I think it is fair to say that the "Economist" points out two reasons. I shall give both. It says:
But such stability was possible only because the Ministry could afford to take a firm line with suppliers that were asking for higher prices; instead of importing at higher cost, it used up stocks at old cost.
I think that is the point which the hon. Member had in mind. It gives that as the first reason and goes on to say:
it is also true that the long-term contract—whatever advantages may be claimed for it—puts very great restraints upon a buyer who is anxious to avoid charging higher retail prices for food.

That is the point to which the hon. Member has referred. It says that through Government long-term purchase a limit is put upon price variation. So far as the second factor is concerned that is well known and can be established. Our long-term contracts are known, and it is known that the periodic price variation is tied, say, to 5 or 7½ per cent. The other argument, however, was pure speculation, because the author of the article goes on to say:
the Ministry of Food never discloses its stocks in the belief that it thereby protects its bargaining power.

Mr. Granville: The Parliamentary Secretary will take into consideration that the Chancellor has made it clear in this House that the position is such that it will only be towards the end of the year that we shall begin to feel the pinch of devaluation and higher prices?

Mr. Willey: I am dealing with the second point. The article in the "Economist" attributes the relatively low price increases of foodstuffs in this country to the two factors to which I have referred—that we have Government bulk purchase, and that our stocks, it is alleged, have run down. All I say about the latter point is that the article itself says by implication that that is purely speculation. It is not based on any specific information because, as the writer states, the Ministry refuses to give particulars about its stocks.

Mr. Turton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary claiming that the stock statement in the article is accurate or inaccurate?

Mr. Willey: I wish to say at once that it is inaccurate about stocks. I wish to keep off the point that seemed to trouble my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. R. Adams) but I would say, as this was raised by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. M. Macpherson), that the savings will be substantially greater than are shown for the purpose of this Supplementary Estimate.
That, again, is a matter from which wrong conclusions should not be drawn. I will give one example. We anticipate in this financial year a substantial saving of £15 million or more on cocoa because we have de-controlled cocoa and disposed of our stocks; but it would be


very wrong to come to the conclusion from such figures that we have been running down stocks. What we have done has been to transfer the stocks to the private trade to the advantage of the Exchequer during the financial year.
Other points were raised by the hon. Member touching broadly on the stock position. There was, for instance, the question of our purchases of wheat, and again, as I have already made clear, I do not intend to reveal any figures about stocks. But we have, of course, in order to establish whether our stock position has gone up or down, to set off consumption against supplies. Wheat is a good example, because the consumption of wheat in this country has fallen.
I wish to make one further point about wheat. A point was made, probably without realising its implication, which I understood to be a criticism about the wheat that has been sent to India. I hope that I was wrong. Apparently I was wrong' We all appreciate the reason for sending that wheat to India. It is to prevent starvation there. We must take a collective view about our Commonwealth responsibilities. That is another matter which affects the question of stockpiling and the trade relationships which we should have with the producing countries of the world. This, again, brings us back to Government bulk purchase, because that is a useful instrument for welding together the essential trade relationships upon which the defence of this country, so far as foodstuffs and raw materials are concerned, must essentially depend.
I think there is a tendency—I say no more than that—rather to exaggerate the importance of stockpiling. It is quite impossible for this country of all countries to envisage the stockpiling, for example, of a year's consumption even of imported foodstuffs. We could not consider this problem in that sort of light What we have to do is to look at one or two primarily important and possibly temporary factors. We have to look at the immediate consequences of the possible loss of sources of supply and the time it will take to organise alternative sources of supply.
We have to think of the matter, as one hon. Member who intervened in the debate said, largely in terms of shipping. We regard this matter in terms of safeguarding ourselves against the dislocation

of shipping. Therefore, we concern ourselves with bulky commodities, that type of commodity which by being stored here can save the maximum amount of shipping space, and we also bear in mind a point emphasised in the debate—whether they can be easily stored.
I agree that regard must be had to the availability of labour if we are to deal with stocks that have to be turned over. That in turn means that we have to consider whether we are to have stocks which can remain untouched for a considerable time or whether we should consider storing stocks which have repeatedly to be turned over. From the point of view of shipping, we have to bear in mind the point made by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. We must have regard to the haul of a foodstuff to this country—to its length, and the importance of the commodity to this country, and the possibility of the haul being interrupted.
In this kind of context, it is obvious that my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) put his finger on one of the important factors in the case. It is very important to bear in mind that British agriculture today is far more fully mobilised for possible use in emergency than it has ever been before in peace-time. If we are considering the question of a strategic stockpile of food, we have to recognise that it is fortunate that we have made this rapid recovery so far as livestock is concerned. We have to realise, as I think my hon. Friend said, that we are not only concerned with preserving the ration on the hoof but it is important to remember, in considering other bulky commodities, that the average production of wheat in this country this year is 2,500,000 tons, as against barely more than 1,500,000 tons in 1936–39. The annual production of barley is about double. Sugar beet has been mentioned and we should give credit to all concerned for producing such a record crop.
That is one part of the picture. When we are comparing ourselves with pre-war and asking whether we have learned lessons from the pre-war position, the answer is, yes, we have. We have here indigenous natural resources more fully utilised and making us less dependent on imports if a state of emergency should occur.
Another point which I imagine everyone would concede without trying to ruffle the even temper of the debate by reference to bulk purchase in principle, is that, at any rate for these purposes, without discussing the imports by bulk purchase as such, the machinery of Government purchase against the background of what we have to do makes it much easier to build up a stockpile than was possible before the war. Reference has been made to the position before the war. Every hon. Member knows that there were extreme difficulties in building a stockpile then. There is no reason at all why I should not reveal the commodities in which we were interested before the war, and I should have thought that everyone knew the very grave difficulties there were then.
There was, first, the question of stockpiling whale oil when Unilever's complained that they had been shabbily treated and we had to develop the processes of trying to deal with these matters in co-operation with industry. Grain and storage have been mentioned. We had difficulties at Liverpool where, on the purely physical ground of storage capacity, there was difficulty. I do not blame anyone for this; it was a new problem. But we have learned from experience. In regard to Rumanian wheat there was further difficulty and generally the corn traders felt they were being regarded by the Government of the day as less trustworthy than they ought to have been. In reference to sugar, there were all the difficulties with Messrs. Tate and Lyle and their reluctance to hold stocks when the price was falling.
Against that sort of background, I should have thought that, whether we like bulk purchase or not, everyone would say that here are circumstances in which Government buying makes it so much the easier to tackle the job. I have dealt with three major commodities, but we should think of the final year before the war, when Sir Arthur Salter pressed the Government on this matter and wrote to the responsible Minister saying:
I do entreat you to give your personal attention to the question of bringing in large supplies at once. A great deal could be done by urgent action in even a few weeks.
The Government later decided to spend £5 million on the procurement of foodstuffs, but the war came before that was implemented to any great extent. I am

not referring to this by way of stricture, but because I should have thought that anyone would realise that this sort of difficulty is so much the less likely to arise today.
Turning to the subhead under discussion, I have been asked why it is £3 million and why not some other figure? The point has been made that this, of course, is only a beginning of a stockpiling programme. I can answer very shortly. It is £3 million because we need £3 million to buy the commodities we intend to stockpile before the end of the financial year. That is the position, but I am not going to be drawn into saying what those commodities are. We are asking for the sum under this subhead so that we can identify these purchases for stockpiling. It would be easy to carry through the purchase on our ordinary trading account, but the reason we have asked for it under the subhead is to provide that the items we do in fact purchase are identified.
I have been asked about these commodities and whether I am satisfied that all the steps that ought to be taken have been taken. I can give the House my assurance that I am satisfied with the progress of the programme. That means, as the House must realise by deduction, that we have completed, or are on the way to completing, our arrangements for the purchase of these essential foodstuffs for the stockpile.
There was a great deal of discussion about storage. Two hon. Members present served with me on the Estimates Committee when we considered the food Estimates. I can say for myself, and can support it by reference to the Report if challenged, that our general impression was that on the question of storage the Ministry of Food had really a very good record. The losses were surprisingly small in view of the very large volume of commodities held in stock on behalf of the Ministry. I have been asked why we do not make use of more accommodation. My reply is that we do not need more accommodation at the moment, so suggestions for increasing our accommodation do not arise regarding these present commodities. It was queried from two angles; I was advised, on the one hand, to make greater use of emergency accommodation and, on the other hand I was told that emergency accommodation was


still being used and far too many ats were seen around. I have dealt with the second point——

Mr. N. Macpherson: The hon. Gentleman will recall that on the Estimates Committee we had very definite evidence of the shortage of storage accommodation for grain, particularly for grain product in this country. I wonder if he will deal with that?

Mr. Willey: I will not deal with it, to the hon. Member's satisfaction, because it is not necessary—[Interruption.]Additional storage is not necessary for present purposes. The fact is that we do not require all this storage at the moment. The other factor, which is fairly obvious if any hon. Member reffects upon it, is that the pressure of storage is so much a seasonal matter. In the same commodity we may be short of storage one month but have an abundance a few months later. We paid particular attention to one of the instances of the use of this emergency storage and, while everyone will agree that this was not satisfactory and better storage would have provided better cover for the grain, yet I think we were satisfied that, notwithstanding those difficulties, the grain was remarkably well looked after. To put it in a neutral way, the losses were remarkably small.

Mr. Nugent: Does the hon. Gentleman when he says that no additional storage is needed, mean by implication that he does not consider it necessary to make a strategic stockpile of imported wheat and to provide the storage for it?

Mr. Willey: I was about to go on to that point. In short, all I have dealt with so far have been the present storage requirements, and I should just like to say a little generally about the future position in regard to storage as we see it. As has been indicated, we must both increase our storage capacity and improve it. I have been asked about the steps taken to co-ordinate these matters, which are indeed matters requiring a good deal of co-ordination. This is being thought about; the matter is under active review; but the very fact that a good measure of co-ordination is required means that it will take time to get a very firm view about our storage requirements.
I put it in these three ways. First, we are not worried about storage for the immediate stockpiling that we are considering under this Estimate. Secondly, we are not unduly worried about the manner in which our foodstuffs are at present stored, recognising that some of it is stored under conditions which were emergency conditions which have continued to be used after the war. Thirdly—and this I would emphasise—as part of the stockpiling programme we must provide storage accommodation and consider very carefully with other Departments the type, character and allocation of such accommodation.
Let me make this reservation. It seems to me that, if we are dealing with commodities that have to be turned over and perhaps processed—and I am speaking very broadly about this, because I do not want to prejudge discussion on it—we must not be completely uneconomical about it; we must be prepared for dispersal at the point of emergency and see that we have safeguarded ourselves in providing for very rapid and immediate dispersal. I will put it no higher than that it might be unwise to carry out too great a dispersal of the stocks that have to be turned over and so put into production.

Mr. Maclay: The Parliamentary Secretary is being extremely cautious, and we thank him for that, but this is an important point. He says that, concerning storage, discussions about co-ordination have been going on. Is that an inter-departmental committee? Or is it a Minister—presumably it will have to be the Minister of Defence—who is responsible for seeing that something comes out of these discussions? From sad experience we know only too well, from lessons of the past, the need for urgency and for quick decisions.

Mr. Willey: I will endeavour to help the hon. Gentleman, without saying that I am not open to possible correction. As far as I am aware, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works is responsible for the provision of warehousing space, which is part of the problem.

Mr. Maclay: Then will the hon. Gentleman kindly ask the Minister of Works to remember, before he goes very far in this direction, that a Minister of Transport exists?

Mr. Willey: I was talking of Ministerial responsibility. I can say that there is full inter-departmental consultation. On that, again, I should not like to give the formal description of the consultations that have taken place, but they are continuing—and continuing in the light of the assurances I have given the House.

Captain Crookshank: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, did I understand quite rightly what he was saying? Is he saying that in the view of the Government there is no particular need to disperse the stocks until, as he said, the moment of urgency came? Does that mean they envisage that the stocks, whatever they are, will remain in their normal peace-time place, and as soon as an emergency arises everything will be shifted around the country to somewhere else?

Mr. Willey: No, I was not attributing any view to the Government. I said it struck me, as things were at present, that this at any rate was a prudent consideration. I put it no higher than that. If we have stocks which have to be turned over because they cannot be kept for longer than a limited time, but which should nevertheless be stockpiled, then we should consider how those stocks should be withdrawn from normal circulation. If they go into circulation, they go in against replacements. All I am suggesting for the moment is that we should consider whether or not such stocks should be left where the traditional processing plant is, and so avoid uneconomic costs at the moment, provided we can satisfy ourselves that they can be transported easily and quickly to another point of storage.
I say no more than this. This is a factor which obviously must be carefully considered in the light of other circumstances. I imagine that such a matter must be considered in the light of any representations the Minister of Transport might make about it, because such a suggestion would not be accepted unless we were satisfied on transport grounds. I do not put that forward in any dogmatic way. I only put it forward as an illustration of the many sorts of problems which have to be considered and given weight to if we are to proceed on a programme of providing additional storage accommodation for emergency purposes in this country.
I know I have disappointed many hon. Members who expected me to say something about the details of our stockpiling, but I am sure that on reflection they will agree that, just as great pains were taken before the war in 1939 to keep these activities secret, so today we must equally take pains to see that the country is not prejudiced even by speculation about the commodities which we consider essential to stockpile in the interests of the country.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS VI

VOTE 9. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (FOOD PRODUCTION SERVICES)

Resolution reported:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for certain food production services of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (PETROL AND FERTILISERS)

7.58 p.m.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: I will detain the House for only a very short time on these Supplementary Estimates to say a few words about the Petrol Duty rebate and the grassland fertiliser subsidy, for which additional sums are required in these Supplementary Estimates.
Let me deal first with the Petrol Duty rebate. The House will recall that in his Budget Statement of April last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated when he increased the Petrol Duty that grants would be made to agricultural vehicles. Following that statement legislative form was given to these proposals under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act later in the summer. During his Budget Statement the Chancellor indicated that this concession would cost the country between 2½million and £3 million a year. To use his own words, he said:
I provisionally put the cost of this concession at between £2½million and £3 million a year. The expenditure on these new grants


will of course form the subject of a Supplementary Estimate in due course."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 76.]
That is the Supplementary Estimate we are now discussing.
I wish to ask whether in fact the £1,100,000 asked for today is the total cost of the scheme for one year or only for the period up to the end of the financial year 1950–51—that is, up to the end of March of this year. We must relate this Supplementary Estimate to the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture on 22nd February, when he said that after the settlement of claims from the first year's operation of the scheme, the Government would cease payment of the grants in respect of farm tractors and other machines using petrol. The House would like to have it made abundantly clear exactly what the position is and up to what date claims can be submitted by individual farmers.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us the cost of the scheme which has been operating for one year. I ask hon. Members to remember that during the Second Reading debate on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill many of my hon. Friends expressed their dislike of this scheme. It was specially referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) who said:
If this Bill is given its Second Reading today, its life should be limited to one year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 2664.]
Others of my hon. Friends took up the point. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) took the view that the scheme was a bad one and that the additional cost should be taken into account, either in a special price review or at the annual price review. Today there is on the Order Paper a Motion in the name of the Minister of Agriculture to revoke this scheme. How much better it would have been if the Minister had taken the advice of my hon. Friends at the time of the debate in June and if we had proceeded straight away on more satisfactory lines.
We are now saying farewell to this scheme, with no regrets, but on the assumption that the resulting increases in the farmers' costs of production will be taken fully into account in the price re-

view negotiations which are now going on. Because they are now in process, I shall make no further reference to them. The House would like an assurance from the Minister on this subject.
I turn to Subhead P, which refers to the grassland fertilisers subsidy for which I see that the Minister is asking for £500,000. Before dealing with the policy of the Government with regard to fertilisers subsidies as a whole, I wish to ask a question about the marginal production scheme, under which the House will recollect that occupiers of certain types of agricultural holdings who agree with their county agricultural executive committees to carry out a definite improvement of their holdings may, under certain circumstances, be supplied with goods and services at less than normal charges. Under this scheme as it was introduced in 1949, fertilisers were among the goods available at reduced prices.
Is the cost to the Exchequer of these supplies included in the Supplementary Estimate now under discussion? If so, my hon. Friends would like to know why there is no mention of the new feeding-stuffs subsidy introduced as a supplement to the marginal production scheme under S.I. 1094, of 1950? It would be of interest to be clear on that point. It may be that subsidies of a particular nature are included in the trading services of the Ministry which, owing to the fact that they show a profit and not a deficit, are debarred from discussion. It would be interesting to know what the exact position is.
I turn to the problem of the subsidy on fertilisers as a whole. I wish to remind the House of the comings and goings of fertilisers subsidies in recent years. First, we had the general fertilisers subsidy introduced in October, 1940. That was reduced last year from £15 million a year to £7,500,000. This remaining £7,500,000 a year is due to cease altogether on 1st July of this year. Having taken a decision to abolish the general fertilisers subsidy, the Government decided that there were cases where a subsidy is still needed. Under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provision) Act, a new fertilisers subsidy scheme was introduced, and it is with that scheme that this £500,000 is connected.
The scheme was divided into two sections. Under the first section, a subsidy


was made available for the improvement of land under grass. I shall not weary the House with details of that scheme. We have considered it often before. It was estimated in the financial provisions-of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill that this part of the subsidy would cost £4 million a year. The House is asked today to approve a Supplementary Estimate of £500,000. It would be appreciated if the Parliamentary Secretary could marry those two figures together and tell the House whether it is that there has not been a demand for this subsidy, whether it is that they overlap for the financial year, or exactly what the position is. It is difficult to tell from the Estimate.
We understand from the statement by the Minister of Agriculture on 22nd February, that this part of the new subsidy will cease to be available after 1st July, 1951. Presumably, claims can be put in for part of the subsidy for the period between now and 1st July, and they will come on the Estimate for the year 1951–52. Now I come to the second subsidy which was estimated to cost £1 million a year. That was to be paid towards the cost of fertilisers applied to land which has been continuously under grass for at least seven years at the time of ploughing and has been ploughed since 1st December, 1949, which is the date when the grants for ploughing up of grassland cease.
Therefore, the position, as I see it, is that the agricultural industry will have lost by 1st July of this year the £15 million general fertilisers subsidy, which will have been removed in two stages, and the £4 million fertilisers subsidy for the fertilisers applied to grassland which was introduced under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. The industry will retain the £1 million grants for the application of fertilisers after the ploughing up of grassland of at least seven years standing. I hope the Minister will confirm whether that calculation is correct. I note from the Estimates, and I would say in passing that my hon. Friends take no objection to it, that, just before the end of the scheme for plough-up up grassland, there was a rush to plough up old grassland to such an extent that we have been asked today to approve this additional sum of £1½ million on that account.
From what I have told the House, I think it will be agreed that, whatever the merits of these particular subsidies on fertilisers may or may not be, the Government have certainly had no clear and constant policy with regard to fertilisers in order to assist our farmers in their efforts to fulfil the agricultural expansion programme of 1947. My hon. Friends are certainly not surprised that the Government have found it necessary to abandon the scheme introduced under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act to pay grants towards the cost of fertilisers applied to grassland.
I must refer to the fact that, during the Second Reading debate, it was pointed out again and again by my hon. Friends that the scheme in its proposed form was unworkable, and once again, as so often happens in these matters, the Government have come to the conclusion that we were right. On the other hand, we regret the departure of the general fertiliser subsidy itself, and I believe that many of my hon. Friends on the other side of the House will agree with me that the principle of trying to keep down the cost of fertilisers must, in the national interest, be right in order that we may secure the maximum production from the land of Britain.
The House may perhaps remember that, on behalf of my hon. Friends, I expressed this view on 8th March last year during the debate on the Address, and, today, I hold that view more strongly than ever, and I believe that a subsidy to lower the price of fertilisers is, if anything, going to be more necessary now than ever it was in the past. There is a general rise in prices, and it is to be feared that the prices of fertilisers will go up. That is bound to act as a disincentive to farmers to increase their use of fertilisers.
As we look round the world today, no factor leads us to think that, without them, we can succeed in our policy to expand British agriculture and integrate it with the needs of our defence programme in order that we may become more and not less self supporting. To achieve this we must increase our yields from our own already highly farmed land, and bring more marginal land into cultivation. A greater use of fertilisers is an essential part of this policy, and a simple and constant scheme for encouraging their use, such as the overall


fertiliser subsidy, would appear to my right hon. and hon. Friends to be the most effective way of fulfilling our objective.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Nugent: I want to raise a small point concerning subhead O. In common with the right hon. Gentleman who has introduced a proposal for bringing to an end this scheme of relief in respect of petrol used by agricultural machinery, I am wondering what will be the position of petrol-consuming agricultural machines used on horticultural holdings. I understand that the case of those machines on agricultural holdings will naturally be taken into account in the price review which is now in progress, but the Parliamentary Secretary will recognise that petrol-driven machines used on horticultural holdings will not be taken care of.
In those circumstances, if there is to be no recoupment, since the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognised, when he adumbrated this scheme, that the use of petrol for machines engaged in food production would be considered as in a special category and deserving special treatment, I am wondering how the Parliamentary Secretary intends to recoup the owner of petrol-consuming agricultural machines used on horticultural holdings. It may be that he will refer to the Supplementary Estimates now before us and say that it is proposed to cover those machines that would not be recouped, under the price review now in progress. If that is so, perhaps he would say so, but I feel that this is a point which he should explain when he replies to the debate.

8.16 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): We have had a very short, and in some ways amusing, debate, in which the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Dugdale), enjoyed himself to some extent with the story of "I told you so." In fact, if one looks at the record, one finds that he did not do anything of the sort, but was merely trying to do what nearly all of us try to do without any great success, which is to be right whichever way the cat jumps. The right hon. and gallant Baronet is a very wily bird, and he took the precaution to make his re-

marks so wide that, whichever way the cat jumped he could find some quotation that would help him. I congratulate him upon the skill and charm with which he did it.
He asked me some specific questions, and I thought that it would be convenient to the House at this time if I confined myself to answering specific points rather than making a general speech on the Estimates. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me whether the £1,100,000 shown in the subhead for these petrol-driven machines was, in fact, the amount for the whole of the year for which the scheme now ending will run, and the answer is that it is not. There is no departure here from the original Estimate, which was given as somewhere round about £2 million for a year, and it looks as if the cost will still run round about that figure. What in fact this does provide for is the payments that will actually have to be made before 31st March of the current financial year. Our estimate is that the payments we shall then make up to that point will be roughly about one half of the total which we shall be called upon to make for the whole scheme.
The hon. and gallant Baronet also asked me what was the final date for making claims, and I hope that we might have the assistance of hon. Members who are in touch with the agricultural community on this point. The final date set down is 31st March. We often run into difficulties on this matter, and I am always having letters from hon. Gentlemen putting in a plea for some constituent who, in regard to a certain subsidy, had mislaid the form and had not claimed by the required date. One always hesitates to stick to a closing date, but it does make a very great difficulty in administration if these claims continue to trickle on afterwards. We have to integrate this work with other work of the staff concerned and it would mean that we would have to have two or three staffs to deal with it.
I hope we may have the co-operation of hon. Gentlemen representing agricultural communities in making it clearly known that 31st March is the final date, and that the rule will have to be that claims not in by that date will be time-barred, since we have to work in this scheme with some other payments that will come later in the year.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman also referred to the order revoking the scheme, and said how much better it would have been if we had taken his advice then. With great respect, how much worse it would have been for the industry. What we have, in fact, done is exactly what we set out to do from the beginning. Far from our now taking the advice of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, what has, in fact, happened is that in the course of the last 12 months or so he has got round to taking our view. What we said was that we had had a price review just before the Budget was introduced which gave effect to this increased Petrol Duty. Had we done nothing in the way of providing a special scheme, then the price settlement at the annual review would have held, and the industry would have been mulcted of a sum of money.
What we did was to have a scheme which held the price review, and to consider what was the best thing to do on a long-term basis. Quite frankly, we cannot even now visualise any other special scheme which it would be worth while or practical to run on this basis, and we have come to the conclusion that, as this was a temporary holding of the position, the best way of dealing with it on a long-term basis is to merge it in the price review, and to deal with it in that way. Therefore, we are not departing from the view we held then. We had to hold the position for a time while we examined the whole field. We have done that, and I am very glad we are carrying hon. Members opposite with us, because it is so good for them to be carried with us along the right road. [HON. MEMBERS: "The right road?"] Yes, because what hon. Members opposite do not understand is that the right road in this country is the left of the road.
The hon. and gallant Baronet then addressed himself to the question of the grassland fertiliser subsidy. He made a fairly lengthy speech, which I was delighted that he got through, though a little surprised that he did, on the question of the worthwhileness of a general fertiliser subsidy. When he did it before, I quoted to him "The Times" Agricultural Correspondent—I hope for his general good—who had something very useful to say on the subject, which was, if I may repeat it again, as follows:
No doubt the nation will gain if fertilisers are used more generously on grassland. This,

however, has become a plain matter of good business for the farmer… It is hard to see why it should be necessary to provide a subsidy as well as sound advice to induce farmers to do what it is in their own interests to do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 2720.]
There is, of course, no particular reason why the hon. and gallant Baronet should take notice of it, but it is good advice, and I recommend it to him.
With regard to the special scheme, he asked me whether this Supplementary Estimate covered the costs of any or of all the goods and services schemes under the main marginal production scheme. The answer, as I understand it, is "No." This Supplementary Estimate covers only that part of the cost of this particular provision under the Miscellaneous Provisions Bill which has come in, or will come in before the end of the financial year. It does not cover, on the one hand, the costs of any other schemes which are provided for in our general Estimates—that is why they are not here—and has nothing to do with profits. This was not presented at the beginning of the year because it was not a scheme, and, once again, in order to marry the two figures, the Estimate and the Supplementary Estimate, it only refers to that part of the costs which will, in fact, be paid by the end of the financial year.
We have not, of course, even got in this £500,000 all the claims of the last calendar year for fertilisers supplied in the autumn. We do not think that we have more than three-quarters of those claims, so there will be something there to be paid, and it is virtually certain that we have none of the spring costs, because the fellow who buys his fertilisers in the spring will hardly have got his bills and put them in before the end of the financial year. Therefore, we anticipate that the whole spring application has still to come.
I think those were the points raised by the hon. and gallant Baronet on that matter, except, again, for one of those high-flown passages in which he said that the Government had no consistent policy in abandoning schemes, and so on. The answer to that is, if I may say so—it sounds a harsh word to use, but it is difficult to avoid it—that it is just charming nonsense. We have had a consistent policy with regard to this, and we have done our best to persuade farmers to use


these fertilisers, to understand their sound business value, and the great increase in crops they will get from using them.
We put on these two special schemes, one of which remains, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, on old seven-year grassland ploughed up for a special reason. I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there has been a considerable change since we were discussing this. There has been Korea and the very considerable increase in rearmament costs which the country has to bear, and obviously our position is that in this industry and in this Department, as in any other, we have to bear some part of the unpleasant necessity of helping to find some of the money to pay for that. What we have tried to do here is to seek to make economies where they will do least harm and where, on the whole, the good has already been done.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) asked one short point. [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member for Guildford."] I could really have said nothing worse to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent). I ought never to have thought of the two hon. Members in the same context. The hon. Member for Guildford asked about horticultural machines. There, of course, he has put his finger on the whole weakness of the case of the hon. and gallant Baronet and his hon. Friends when we first discussed this matter, and now. The Government were heavily attacked for introducing the scheme. We always had in mind that there were certain sections of the industry which it was difficult to cover unless there was a scheme of that kind. We have not been able to devise, with all the help we have had, any other scheme for doing this which will stand up to Revenue, Treasury and practical checks. We have decided, with all its attendant disadvantages for some folk, to put it into the Price Review. This remains, like many other things for horticulturists with their non-guaranteed price products, a problem of how to find ways and means of giving them the same kind of security which others have got.
We all agree that this is a very difficult problem, but this does not make it any greater. I have many times, in this House and in other places, explained

ways in which we think that the horticulturists could put their industry on a better basis. I do not think I had better go into that now, but this merely emphasises to a limited degree the need for that to be done. I think those were all the points raised, and I am very grateful to the House for giving us the Supplementary Estimate in such an harmonious mood.

Orders of the Day — CLASS VI

VOTE 21. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR SCOTLAND (FOOD PRODUCTION SERVICES)

Resolution reported:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £36,450, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for certain food production services of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Snadden: I do not want to detain the House more than a few minutes, but this Estimate is, of course, of just as much importance to Scotland as the one we have just discussed is to England and Wales. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) has already made the main points, but I shall express one particular fear I have in regard to the removal of subsidies in the Scottish Estimates, in whole or in part. Personally, I am always glad to see direct subsidies go, provided prices are struck so as to show a realistic reflection of costs, because thus we get away from an artificial economic structure and make our way towards a securer foundation for agriculture. I think that that is a good thing.
So far as the petrol grant is concerned, no one will regret its passing. No one liked it. It was an absurd scheme, a cumbersome scheme. Having had some experience of the form-filling that had to be done in connection with it, I can say that it is no exaggeration to say that the forms to be filled up were so complicated that they would have baffled a professor of mathematics, let alone a farmer who


spends most of his days out in his fields. I am glad to see it is now to go. The Opposition never liked it. They said it would not work, and it has not worked very well.
But, like my hon. and gallant Friend, I am a little apprehensive about the removal of the fertiliser subsidy, and here, I think, with all respect to my English friends, we in Scotland are going to feel this possibly more than farmers South of the Border, because of the remoteness of our farms from the beaten track. I am not sure that this is a wise move, because, in face of the international situation, it hits at something we ought to preserve—the fertility of the soil. A little while ago we were discussing stockpiling, and I should have been rather inclined to have taken the view, if I had spoken in that debate, that we cannot provide enough food for current consumption at the moment, let alone for stockpiling.
Here we are doing something that will tend to hit the small farmer, who is a very important person in Scotland. Farms in marginal and remote areas are in the most serious position at the moment. The greatest problem in front of the British producer of food today is that of ever-increasing costs. In the remote areas we are faced with enormously increased costs of transport; we have had a recent increase of wages; machinery has gone up; spares have gone up; so have tyres and overheads. Rising costs are uppermost in the farmers' minds. On top of all that, we had a very bad harvest due to the wet season, which has been so long drawn out. We have had a most expensive winter because we have eaten into winter feed, and the result is that farmers today are very worried about their cash position.
I am afraid that the removal of the fertiliser subsidy may tend to curtail fertiliser applications by the farmers in the remoter areas whose farms, at any rate in Scotland, comprise the only type of farm from which we can get increased food production. I know the Minister has promised us—and I presume that this applies also to the Scottish position—that the removal of these subsidies will be taken into account in the price review, but the majority of the farms about which I am talking—and they form a very large percentage of the farms in Scotland—the marginal and remote farms, do not

actually benefit in any direct form from guaranteed prices, the reason being that they are mostly concerned with store, stock and stock rearing. Therefore, that argument about the price review does not apply to a very large number of the farmers in Scotland.
So I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State to say a word about this to assure us that the removal of the fertiliser subsidy is not going to affect adversely the expansion programme undertaken by the Government. Is anything to be done, for example, through the marginal production scheme to fill the gap created because of the removal of the fertiliser subsidy? I want to know if he is satisfied that it will not result in the curtailment of applications for fertilisers in a large part of the country, which, I think, in present circumstances, would be disastrous. The second question is this. Before this decision was taken, were the agricultural organisations—and I suppose that the National Farmers' Union is the principal organisation—consulted? Did they think this a wise move? I should like to know that for the satisfaction of my hon. Friends who represent Scottish divisions.
The problem facing producers of food—and I speak from my own experience—is to keep down rising costs and at the same time to meet the wages of agricultural workers fixed by Statute. Here we have a greatly increased cost imposed upon the producer. I think it true to say that from 1st July, 1950, fertiliser prices have risen by more than 25 per cent. The blow was softened to some extent by this scheme. Now the scheme is to be removed I would like the Minister to say that it has been fully discussed in co-operation with the National Farmers' Union of Scotland and that they are satisfied that, even though there is an increase in costs, there is no danger of a curtailment of production which would have an adverse affect upon our expansion programme.

8.36 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I am glad that we have had the view of the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) on the grass fertiliser subsidy, particularly as it must have affected the small marginal farms in Scotland. He asked whether the agricultural organisations had


been consulted. They have. We have had discussions with the National Farmers' Union in Scotland and I do not think I am misrepresenting them when I say that, broadly, they are in agreement with what we have proposed.
I think I should make it clear that this present grassland fertiliser subsidy scheme runs for some little time yet. The scheme year is from 1st July to 30th June, and since we have already been discussing the date by which applications for grants must be made, let me make it clear that claims may be received for this scheme up to 30th September. It is true that we are discontinuing this particular scheme, but the hon. Gentleman was careful to observe that we were going to do something in a modified way.
What we have in mind is to deal with these small farms he mentioned, particularly those farms in marginal areas. We wish to change this scheme from one which gives a grassland fertiliser subsidy to farms in all parts of the country and to preserve the subsidy mainly for application to marginal agricultural land. I say "mainly," because it will not be exclusively. We are still having discussions with the organisations concerned, but we think it probable that it would be desirable to continue in the scheme a provision to assist with fertilisers certain areas of land not included in the marginal agricultural production scheme.

Mr. Snadden: Separately?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, separately, quite outside and in addition to the grants given under the M.A.P. scheme. What we have in mind in the modified scheme which will come before the House eventually is what the hon. Gentleman has been asking for. In removing this subsidy we are not bent upon removing it from the people who are most deserving of it, and who must have it if they are to continue to be successful in their operations.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS II

VOTE 2. FOREIGN OFFICE GRANTS AND SERVICES

Resolution reported:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of

March, 1951, for sundry expenses connected with His Majesty's Foreign Service; special grants, including grants in aid; and various other services.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Orders of the Day — ARAB REFUGEES

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: May I ask a question, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, without losing any hopes which I may have for the future? I thought that it had been considered that possibly it would be more easy for both sides of the House to make this short debate useful if we began with a Ministerial statement.

The Minister of State (Mr. Younger): I am perfectly agreeable to that, if it is the wish of the House. Some 10 days ago at Question Time, I was invited to make a considered statement, and I have been preparing to do so.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I asked the hon. Gentleman to do so, and I am most obliged to him.

Mr. Younger: I want to keep the statement as short as I can, as there is not much time to cover the whole ground. The House will realise that the whole of this tragic problem arises from the Palestine conflict. I hope that we shall be able to keep as much as possible of the old discussions about that conflict out of the debate tonight, because if we are to solve the problem of the refugees it is important that there should be an atmosphere of increasing conciliation and that we should not revive old memories unnecessarily.
It may be remembered that in the early months of 1948, the problem of the refugees who had just left their homes had to be shouldered by the Governments of the neighbouring countries. But that could not last long—their resources were too limited—and as early as 1948 the Distress Relief Project was organised by the United Nations Mediator. In November of the same year, the General Assembly of the United Nations took a hand and established the first of the major organisations—the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees—which carried on until April, 1950, working with a number of voluntary organisations.
In the meantime, the United Nations Economic Survey began in the Middle East and reported on this matter, among others. As a result of the recommendations of that mission, the present organisation, called the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees was founded. This agency took over in May, 1950. It is under the direction of a Canadian, General Kennedy, who is assisted by an Advisory Commission on which His Majesty's Government are represented by Sir Henry Knight.
The size of the refugee problem is such as to make it not only a very serious human problem but a grave political problem affecting the stability of the entire area. Approximately 850,000 refugees are at present receiving relief. That is a reduction of the figure which was once over one million—not a very large reduction, but one that should be noted. Of that 850,000, some 450,000 are in Jordan alone, 250,000 in Gaza, 120,000 in Lebanon and 80,000 in Syria. Up to the time when the present Agency took over in May of last year, international assistance took the form exclusively of direct relief. Although this was a prime necessity, it was by itself quite inadequate. Mere relief in the long run demoralises those who receive it if they have no other prospects than to continue to receive it.

Mr. Pickthorn: Like the welfare State?

Mr. Younger: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not make those remarks, because I am trying to be as helpful as I can.
Mere relief did not solve the problem and there was the prospect of it going on indefinitely. Therefore, the General Assembly authorised the present Agency to carry out works as well as relief, and it has managed to give a certain amount of useful employment to a number of these refugees, which at the same time has helped to increase the productive capacity of the area.
Under the most recent resolution passed in the General Assembly in November, 1950, the scope of the Agency's work was increased to cover projects for the permanent re-establishment of refugees in Arab countries and in Israel. The idea that they should be re-established in other countries was, of course, without prejudice to the right which they claim

to repatriation and to compensation for loss of property. It is significant, however, that the resolution incorporating the idea of what has been called re-integration not only in Israel but other countries was supported by delegates of all the Arab countries and also of Israel. That is one of the more encouraging features of the present situation. That is relatively recent—November of last year.
Clearly, although its task is not political, the Agency is bound to be handicapped by the absence of an over-all political settlement between Israel and the Arab States. In the absence of such settlement little could be achieved either by repatriation or by re-settlement in Arab countries. One country in the area which has from the first been prepared to accept these refugees for re-settlement has been Jordan, which has borne the main burden of housing the refugees at the present time. It is an unfortunate fact that her facilities for successfully resettling these people are extremely limited. We are hoping, now that all the other Governments have accepted the principle of re-settlement, it may be possible to achieve better results.
May I pass now to the question of finance, which has been a very difficult one indeed for this Agency? It was estimated that the equivalent of 54 million dollars would be required for the 1950–51 programme. It was hoped that that would include not merely relief, but also a considerable amount for relief works which would permanently settle some of these refugees. In fact, only 43 million dollars of that amount was subscribed. I am sorry to say that there were many Governments which did not subscribe at all. The figures subscribed, largely in kind or in services, by the Middle Eastern Governments amounted to about 2 million dollars.
There was a further difficulty. It soon became apparent that even this considerable figure of 54 million dollars which it was hoped would have been enough was calculated on the basis of 650,000, whereas it turned out that the Agency had to take over no fewer than 950,000 refugees when it began. I think we can say that the Agency has, in the face of these tremendous problems, succeeded in its first task of providing relief, as well as to some extent managing to provide works.
There has been a good deal of concern shown in the House and elsewhere for


the health and general condition of the refugees. No one can pretend that they are wholly satisfactory, but I am informed that on the average it can be said that those in the care of the Agency have a standard of health which is as good as, and in some cases better than, that enjoyed by the inhabitants of the area, the standard, of course, not being a very high one. The real difficulty has been owing to the short-fall in funds, which has inevitably meant that the full works programme has suffered most—relief had to be carried on in any case for obvious reasons.
Some of these schemes which have been developed, such as road-making, have given temporary work to the refugees and have also had some effect on the resettlement problem. For instance, they have opened up certain areas on which it is possible for additional population to settle, which could not have stood any increase in population but for the roads. We have to admit that on that side of the work the Agency has inevitably not been so successful as on the other sides. It has, however, generally gained the confidence of most of the Arab Governments, which is an absolutely essential pre-condition for increasing the tempo of re-settlement—that can only occur with the good will of the Governments.
There have been suggestions made from time to time that the Agency has been extravagent in its administrative costs. The Government do not think that that is a very fair criticism of the Agency today. It has greatly reduced the international staff it inherited from its predecessors. The amount expended upon administrative costs is not at all unreasonable. I am told there are at the moment 116 foreign staff on the pay roll, which is almost exactly half the number of the foreign staff which was inherited a number of months ago.
The 1951–52 programme aimed at was 50 million dollars, but only 34 million dollars have so far been promised. Unless we can get that amount increased, the funds available for large-scale re-settlement will once again prove to be quite inadequate. As to the physical capacity of the neighbouring countries to accept these settlements, there are undoubtedly possibilities, but I should like to say one word about the possibility in Israel.
Whatever one may think about the moral merits, the fact seems to be that there is no prospect of large-scale resettlement within Israel, and His Majesty's Government believe that it is in conformity with realism and in the interests of the refugees themselves that the majority of them, without prejudice to their right to return or to have compensation for their properties, should, in fact, make up their minds to settle amongst their brethren in Arab countries rather than in Israel or in the much more remote parts of the world, which have been suggested from time to time.
The Israeli Government have now offered and reaffirmed their willingness to pay fair compensation for abandoned land, and to pay a sum on account into the Reintegration Fund to help with resettlement. The machinery for that, which is a difficult matter to arrange and work out, is in the hands of the Palestine Conciliation Commission, and His Majesty's Government very much hope that the Israeli Government, in cooperating with the Commission in that matter, will decide to give the most generous compensation possible.
Finally, I want to say a word about our contribution in this matter, which has been considerable. From the very start we have tried in every way in our power to promote an international solution of this problem. We were first in the field with the original fund, and our contribution to assist the relief work and the first relief organisation was over £1 million. I think, indeed, it was £1.1 million. We contributed £3 million to the 1950–51 programme of the Agency, and we have promised nearly £3 million again to the 1951–52 programme. We have also provided practical assistance and seconded experts from our Middle East Office.
By the political and diplomatic means at our disposal, we have done everything we can to encourage all Governments, including the Middle East Governments, to make their contribution. This is a thing to which we attach the greatest importance not only, as I said earlier, upon human grounds, but also because of the serious implications to the stability of the Middle East if we do not find a rapid and satisfactory solution.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I hope it will not be supposed that because of


any facetiousness into which I may seem to have slipped, or may be about to slip, that I do not feel very deeply the tragedy of this, as well as the guilt upon us all. I do not say that nobody could feel it much more deeply than I can which might seem to boast of my sensibility, but so far as my capacity for depth of feeling goes, I could not feel more deeply than on this subject, and if I smile or snigger I hope hon. Members will assume that like the man in the play, I laugh to avoid weeping.
I agree with one of the hon. Gentleman's suggestions: I would not go back into the Palestine conflict and all that, but that we should do all we can to increase conciliation. I feel bound to say, on that account, that the hon. Gentleman omitted something from the reasons he gave at the end why His Majesty's Government had done their best to persuade and encourage other Governments. From the reasons he then adduced he omitted what should be perhaps the most important reason. His reasons were first the ordinary humane grounds, second that we should all feel the danger of this inflammable material lying about the Levantine powder magazine. We all agree about that. What he left out is that if any of these supra-national organisations, U.N.O. and all the rest of them, are to provide the moral and intellectual justification for a world policy, the only hope that that could happen is that, with the help of those supra-national organisations, we should provide as much humanity as the old Government were capable of, and that we should be doing as much to avoid unnecessary cruelty and suffering as was done in the bad old days of dynastic policies and secret diplomacy.
I regard this problem, in its direct and indirect effects, actual and potential, as no less important than any other single problem in the whole international field. I was therefore a little bit depressed that the hon. Gentleman should not have mentioned that consideration, if he was going to mention general considerations at all. I was also a little depressed that he should have been unjust to remind us—to mark the point on the billiard marker in the corner of the room, so to speak—that we were the first in the field. If we had not been we should have deserved to be despised. Whatever view we may take about these things, there is surely one thing to be said about

imperium in this connection. Where we have had power to protect people and we have decided that it shall come to an end, the duty is upon us that the ending shall not be more maleficent than on any doctrine, imperialism could have been.
I am a little sorry that the Treasury Bench should have found matter for self-congratulation there. I was a little sorry—but this I do not complain of because I am going to fall into the same error myself. I have spoken too long on general grounds but I have not had an opportunity to prepare—sorry that we did not get more definition of the exact way in which this money is going. I am bound to say that I have no great confidence in my own ability to read this kind of note and that I do not find Note J on the first part of page 13 at all easy to follow. On some occasion we ought to have it really plainly set out. Time is so short now, that I cannot go through it, but I should say that it is not possible for anybody to go through it plainly, and to be sure that he has read it correctly.
Perhaps it may be possible to give the hon. Gentleman 10 minutes at the end extra, to say what this sum of money is doing which was not contemplated in the original Estimate. I take it that this is what this kind of Estimate is mainly for. It says "further provision now required" at the bottom of that note. I am not quite sure what "further provision" means. Is it provision on top of the £3,250,000 which has been the maximum commitment of His Majesty's Government to date, I think? Or is it merely that within the present financial year further provision is required on top of what has already been spent, or what?
Then I think we ought to have sometime again—if not tonight certainly sometime—more explanation about how much of this money has gone and is going into what might be called day to day administration, the kind of relief which the right hon. Gentleman himself said in the long run perhaps does more harm than good. How much is going into that and how much is becoming, so to speak, in effect, capital? How much of that money is going into such improvements of the human material or such provision of material not human as will increase earning capacity in the future? We ought to have that explained to us some-


time. It is clearly in everybody's interests that the maximum proportion should be of the second kind. Very few of us have any direct information, but what we have rather leads us to fear that it is almost all of the first kind.
I think tonight was the first time that we have had the admission that the number of Arabs concerned is over one million. I can certainly remember mentioning the figure of 700,000 and being checked from the other side of the House and told that it was not more than 600,000 and that kind of thing; but we are told now that it is something to have got it down to 850,000. We ought sometime to know how certain that figure is and how certain it is that there is nothing happening the other way: is it true that 5,000 more Arabs were extruded from Palestine last summer? and, whether or not that is true, are His Majesty's Government now confident that more such extrusions will not take place?
The right hon. Gentleman did not mention what is sometimes called the Clapp Programme. Hon. Gentlemen who are interested will be familiar with what I mean. That programme, which was meant to make sure that the money did tend mainly towards productive employment and re-settlement, was to have been finished by June, 1951, and we ought to be told whether it is still supposed that something of that sort will happen, or, if not, what alternative dates are now thought of, and what report on those and similar questions has been received from Sir Henry Knight; and are the rations now being received there, in cases where they are by way of pure relief, adequate?
We know that a very short time ago the rations were not adequate. Are they now adequate, and are we sure—I would wish, if I may, without presumption, to associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman's words of gratitude to the Kingdom of Jordan—are we sure that all that can be done has been done to help them? When we reckon that they had been given £3 million to help half a million refugees—that is to say, £6 per head per annum—it does not allow for a very high level of rationing. When we take out of the £6 such proportion of it as is to be spent on equipment and resettlement, the rationing, if adequate, can, I think, barely be luxurious.
What is being done about the Gaza strip? The people in the Gaza strip are nearly hopeless, worse than "eyeless in Gaza," wedged between the deep blue sea and Israel? What is being especially done for them? They are quite plainly a very special case and something specially apt and urgent ought to be being done for them.
Lastly, as I have just mentioned Israel, what about the so-called "abandoned land"? The right hon. Gentleman referred to a sum in advance. What sum? I had thought it was £1 million. Is that right? If so, why was not he specific? Have His Majesty's Government any estimate of what the total sum would be likely to be on terms of fair compensation? I mean, is it £1 million, or £100 million, or £1,000 million? That may be a sort of guess, but is there any sort of guess? And have we agreed with the Zionist Government about what the word "abandoned," in this highly technical connotation, means? If I am pushed out of my garden, or even if people are thrown down the well at the bottom of my garden, till I choose to leave it am I to be regarded as having been forced to leave the garden, or have I abandoned it? What definition is there to be of "abandoned"?

Mr. Younger: Mr. Younger rose——

Mr. Pickthorn: I must not give way. I have been 10 minutes and I propose now to sit down. I hope the questions I have put are fair; I think they have been plain.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price: Like my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, I also hope that in our short discussion we shall not say anything to revive old bitternesses about this matter. At the same time I hope this discussion will make it clear to all of us how deep is our responsibility for the fate of these Arab refugees.
It happened that last autumn I was out in the Middle East, and under the old Roman walls of Damascus, close to the spot where St. Paul is said to have been let down by a basket, there is an Arab refugee camp. I went over it. There are many hundreds there and thousands elsewhere. There are 80,000 altogether in Syria who are living in the poorest possible conditions. I will not describe to the House what I saw—it would take too


long and others wish to speak—but I can assure the House that the conditions were extremely bad.
There are 120,000 in Lebanon across the border, where conditions are more difficult still, because Lebanon is a very crowded country. Incidentally, the majority of the population are Christian Arabs and they feel as bitterly about it as the Mahommedans. In Syria there is a prospect of the settlement of these people but unfortunately public opinion is bitterly against it. I spoke with Syrian politicians and statesmen and I could get nothing except, "These people were turned out of their homes, they have to go back, but you are responsible for having allowed it to take place." The feeling against Britain is bitter, but perhaps it is even more bitter against the Americans. I could not argue with them.
Something might be done if we could get the Israeli Government to agree to their responsibility to pay compensation. I know they have their troubles, but they do not show much sign of doing anything. If they took some practical steps, public opinion in the Arab countries might adopt a more realistic attitude to this refugee problem. The same thing is true in Iraq, which is much farther away, of course. It is a country where there are possibilities of settlement and it might be possible for it to take a considerable number of these refugees in time.
I believe the most hopeful place is the Jezire region of Syria, in the corner between Turkey, Iraq and Syria, near the middle waters of the Euphrates, where there is considerable cotton development taking place. I did not go there myself, but I saw a number of Englishmen and others who had been up there recently. If one could get over the public feeling in Syria, it might be possible to get these refugees settled out there. At present, public opinion is such that these poor wretches have to remain there living on day-to-day relief. I feel very strongly that that is not good enough.
In the Vote, £2½ million of our money is to be expended. Like the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn), I should like to know what proportion of that is to be devoted to capital purposes and what proportion to relief. I should like the bulk of it to go in capital expenditure for settling these people. I agree that, whatever may be the morality of the whole thing, there is no chance for them

to get back into Israel again. They have to make homes elsewhere, and we must try to get over this very strong feeling in the Arab countries—it was much stronger than I realised until I went there—to enable them to settle once more on the land.
There are these regions in the Middle East, particularly in the Jezire region, which has a moderate rainfall and is in the famous Green Belt, where cotton can be grown and where developments in the near future are quite possible. I hope, therefore, that the question will be approached, not only from the financial side, but with a view to seeing what can be done politically and diplomatically to persuade the Arabs that something will be done to help them to settle these people on the land, and that Israel may be made to shoulder their responsibilities as soon as possible.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Baker White: I have only a very little to say, but I have been following this matter since the day on which I waited for one of those pleasant second adjournment debates which we used to have before 10 o'clock during the life of the last Parliament. I agreed at that time that the first contribution towards easing this problem had been made by His Majesty's Government. I said then, and I repeat now, that our record in this matter is probably better than anybody else's, but we all still bear a very heavy responsibility.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price), made the point that I intended to make, that the countries of the Middle East, who really should have done most, have done precious little. The hon. Member has come up against—as I also have encountered in the Middle East—what I call a lack of social conscience, where people can live in luxury but with dreadful poverty next door to them and yet have consciences that do not prick.
I agree with the Minister of State that the bulk of these people cannot go back to Israel. The people of Israel are apt to forget what a small country theirs is, and I think I am right in saying that the Israeli Government are now having to control the immigration of Jews into that country. Not only is it a small country, but much of it is not at present fertile. I agree that the Israeli Government should


try to make their contribution towards helping these people, the only future for whom, I feel, is on the land in the Arab States. The majority of them came off the land. They were born and brought up on the land, and not in other work, and they should go back to the land.
The question is, where should they go? Certain places have been suggested. There is that great area that lies around Homs and Hama, south of Aleppo, where somewhat indifferent crops of corn are now grown. The area is largely empty because the soil is largely wasted and worn down. I. remember that during the war the British Army had a farm near Hama and increased enormously the fertility of the soil. Instead of the place crawling with goats, which destroy the fertility of the soil in the Middle East, it had good beef stock. I do not know what has happened to that farm—it may have reverted to its original state; but I believe that a lot could be learnt from that experiment and that many of these refugees could be settled in that area if we could get the good will of the Syrian Government. Then there is the area south of Homs, on the Damascus road, where, again, what was once fertile soil has been wasted and worn down. I believe it is to that area that we can look, provided there is good will, to settle a large number of these people.
What part are these people to play, if any, in the future defence scheme of the Middle East? Many of these Arabs come from families with whom the profession of arms is an honourable one. Is there any place for them in any democratic defence force which is being built up in the Middle East? I do not know, but I hope there may be. First, we must get them back on the land, as there is nothing more discouraging and demoralising than having refugees living in camps with nothing to do.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: I wish to say a few words in this debate and first to answer the question of how much U.N.O. has done for settlement and relief. This Christmas I went to Jordan to make a special study of the problem. I felt when listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) that it is much easier to speak quietly about the subject when one

has actually seen it. I went to Jordan, which used to be a country of 300,000 Bedouins east of the Jordan and which was then doubled by 300,000 Palestinians and then more than doubled when nearly 500,000 refugees came in. Half the population are refugees today. When I asked a U.N.O. official how many refugees he had directly settled he had to admit that the number was zero. Not one Arab refugee family had been settled in Jordan since U.N.O. took over.
This is not merely a tragedy, it is a catastrophe for the democratic defence of the Middle East. For two years half a million Arab refugees have lived in camps in Jordan—I only speak of the country I have actually seen—maintained by U.N.O. in those camps living with soup kitchens and feeding on soup in terrible areas of destitution. I motored, as many hon. Members have done, from Jerusalem to Jericho and, as hon. Members will remember, on the left on the way to Jericho there is a great stretch of sandy desert. There I saw 30,000 Arab refugees who had been in tents for two years. I made inquiries and they told me—I do not know if it is true—that none of these U.N.O. officials of which my hon. Friend spoke so highly had found time ever to go to that camp. They had been left there with the soup kitchens, and 800,000 dollars a month is being spent in Jordan alone in maintaining refugees in destitution and complete demoralisation. In addition to the 500,000, or 450,000 technical refugees, there are what I must call the settled refugees.
There are unfortunate villagers on the frontier who, owing to the frontier demarcation, are on one side of the Jordan while all their lands are in Israel. I stood in a village called Querguilya, which has a population that has trebled since the demarcation of the Frontier. There the people look 200 yards across barbed wire to see the Israeli picking oranges in their orange groves, but with no form of maintenance for themselves except a soup kitchen. But they are not refugees because they are living in their village. It is not the fault of Israel but the fault of the Jordanian officers who, when they cynically drew the line of demarcation in the Armistice negotiations said, "Give us the villages, which are on the map, and the Jews can have the lands."
That is the situation, and U.N.O. has done nothing whatsoever for the serious resettlement of these refugees. In my belief, as long as we rely on U.N.O. to do anything whatsoever for serious resettlement we shall simply be deceiving ourselves, because U.N.O. is a political organisation. There is the Arab League, and all the politics of the Arab League. The Arab League needs the refugee problem in order to keep the division against Israel. The resettlement of the refugees would, of course, from the point of view of the Arab League, remove its major complaint. Secondly, a peace between Jordan and Israel would, from the point of view of the Arab League, be highly embarrassing in breaking the embargo on Israel which now exists. That seems to me the deadlock we have to face today.
I thought that my hon. Friend was quite unrealistic in saying that we have done our duty by contributing to U.N.O. Quite honestly, if the funds we have paid out already had been paid direct into Jordan to resettle the refugees in the area which is our main responsibility, it would have done infinitely more good. One thing that is fortunate for us is that the hatred of Britain has now been surpassed by the hatred of U.N.O. in the Arab mind, for U.N.O. divided Palestine and U.N.O. is leaving the Arab in the soup kitchens, and Britain is now still a possibility of hope. I beg the Government to give funds direct to the Jordan Government and to send British technicians and officers out there to do the job ourselves.
I am glad of what has been said by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) about the defence of the Middle East. The only reliable ally we possess in the whole Middle East is the tiny Kingdom of Jordan. We are spending £6 million a year on the Arab Legion as a force which could be allied with us in defence of the Arab world. No soldier of the Arab Legion could be permitted to leave Jordan at the present moment owing to the internal security problem created by the refugees. What is the good of spending £6 million on the Jordan Army and then permitting a social disintegration in Jordan, which is completely immobilised from the point of view of any useful purpose to ourselves. What is the good of saying we will wait for U.N.O. to do this?

Major Tufton Beamish: We want to hear the Minister of State.

Mr. Crossman: We have heard him.

Major Beamish: He is going to reply. Do give him time.

Mr. Crossman: I am very grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for telling me.
What is the good of appealing to U.N.O. all the time when we are chiefly responsible for what happens in Palestine, and when what we do in Jordan and Israel determines whether we get the friendship of those two countries'? We can never achieve friendship between Israel and Jordan unless we are prepared to create in Jordan economic and social conditions which enable them to remove the feeling of resentment over the refugees and so bring the two Governments together. I suggest that £10 million invested in helping the refugees in Jordan would be the beginning of peace between Jordan and Israel; would recover the British good name in the whole Arab world; would be understood in Israel as a real contribution by Britain to breaking down the division between Israel and the Arab world; and would be a basis of building our Middle Eastern defence. As long as we go on relying on U.N.O. and international organisations I believe that we shall be able to do nothing at all for the refugees, and nothing at all for defence.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I shall exercise my ingenuity so as to allow the hon. Gentleman a few minutes to reply. I will simply say to the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), that he has done a service in bringing this matter a little more to the front of our minds than was done by his hon. Friend. The statement of the Minister was quite accurate, and we acknowledge what the British Government have done in their contribution. In fact, they have made a real effort, but there was not sufficient in the speech of the Minister of State to indicate the really serious human considerations which ought to face the House this evening.
We are facing here a tragedy of the first magnitude, and although I disagree with the hon. Member for Coventry, East, in his reference to the Arab League and to the Political Committee of the Arab League, I think he did a service in giving


us his personal impressions, and showing us the horrors that exist. After all, there are in Jordan at present, disregarding the Gaza strip to which my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) referred, some 102,000 refugees living in camps quite without any proper shelter, 29,000 of them living in ditches and holes. At the same time, we are told that there are some 300,000 of these refugees who, according to the description of the "Manchester Guardian" correspondent at Amman, are living:
clustered into the towns and villages. Squatting in backyards and sheds or on the niches and crannies of caves and ancient ruins, their conditions are often much worse than those in the camps where some medical care and sanitation is provided.
Those in the Gaza strip are simply living on the sand dunes with practically no hope of future existence at all. That is the human problem we are facing.
The hon. Gentleman was less than fair to the Political Committee of the Arab League, because they made a decision on 2nd February last first, that all Palestinian refugees should endeavour to be settled immediately in countries, without prejudice to their rights of repatriation and compensation. Secondly, they passed a resolution that there should be cooperation with the United Nations Refugee Organisation. But the third point is the most important of all. It is that more funds than those already allotted under resettlement schemes should be provided. That was their decision.
My concluding appeal to the Minister is that this is a question of increased funds, of more money; of providing the money where it is really needed. This is a great human problem. The Government have made some sort of endeavour, but we are nowhere near its settlement and, if we do not settle it, Communism will come and plant itself in the Middle East.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Younger: I honestly cannot answer in the two minutes which are available all the questions which have been asked. I thought that I had been asked to give a factual statement to begin with, and if I did not put as much emotion into it as some people would have liked, I ask the House to accept my assurance that it is not because the Government do not feel as strongly as others

about this matter. I cannot accept the view that it would be far better to deal with this on our own in Jordan. The resettlement facilities or possibilities in Jordan are far too limited. One need only look at the subscription lists to see what a tremendous loss there would be if we tried to do this on our own without inviting a very considerable subscription from all parts of the world, above all from the United States of America.
The hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Phillips Price), said that they would have hoped that a very high proportion would have been spent on resettlement rather than on relief. I am told that, in fact, 70 per cent. had to be spent on relief in the last year and only 17 per cent. on works; but the truth, of course, is that it is no use spending a lot on capital works if all the refugees die in the meantime. If we have not got funds for this, we must give top priority to keeping them alive. I think it is no criticism of the United Nations Agency that that should have been done.
Obviously, I cannot attempt to answer all the other questions in the one minute I now have left. I am told that the rations, poor as they no doubt are, are reasonably balanced and are not altogether inadequate by comparison with the general standards in that part of the world. That, again, is no doubt partly a matter of the total funds which are available for these various purposes.
I was asked what had happened to what was called the "Clapp Programme." The Clapp Mission was the United Nations Economic Survey Mission to which I referred. That set out an 18 months programme which it was hoped would finish in the summer of this year. Because it has fallen so far behind, owing to shortage of funds, the United Nations Assembly continued it for a further year; and it is for a further year that the new fund is being asked for from all members of the United Nations.

Major Legge-Bourke: Might I ask the hop. Gentleman whether His Majesty's Government can give an assurance that they will do everything in their power to stop further Arab inhabitants of Palestine—or Israel as it now is—being driven out of their country, because very nearly 7,000 have gone in the last year?

Mr. Younger: We use all our influence to that end, of course.

Question put, and agreed to.

It being half-past Nine o'Clock,Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No.16 (Business of Supply) to put forthwith, with respect to each Resolution come to by the Committee of Supply and not yet agreed to by the House, the Question,"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1950–51.

Resolutions reported:

Orders of the Day — CLASS IX

VOTE 1. MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Supply for the supply of munitions, aircraft, common-user and other articles and atomic energy and for research and development, inspection, storage, disposal and capital and ancillary services related thereto; for administrative services in connection with the iron and steel, non-ferrous and light metals and engineering industries; for the operation of the Royal Ordnance Factories and Official Car Services; and for miscellaneous supplies and services.

Orders of the Day — CLASS VI

VOTE 1. BOARD OF TRADE

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,631,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and subordinate departments, including the cost of certain trading services; assistance and subsidies to certain industries; certain grants in aid; and other services.

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12,168,357, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for expenditure in respect of the following Supplementary Estimates, namely:

CIVIL ESTIMATES



Class I
£


6.
Privy Seal Office
50


9.
Exchequer and Audit Department
7,500


10.
Government Actuary
10


14.
National Debt Office
10


23.
Silver
2,000,000

Class II
£


7.
Commonwealth Services
10


10.
Colonial and Middle Eastern Services
10


13.
Development and Welfare (South African High Commission Territories)
100,000


Class III


3.
Police, England and Wales
10


4.
Prisons, England and Wales
109,750


8.
County Courts, etc.
10


15.
Prisons, Scotland
47,722


20.
Department of the Registers of Scotland
10


Class IV


3.
British Museum (Natural
History)
2,000


6.
National Gallery
8,200


16.
National Library, Scotland
1,025


Class V


3.
Housing, England and Wales
10


5.
Registrar General's Office
5,000


9.
National Assistance Board
7,305,000


11.
Friendly Societies Registry
850


15.
National Health Service, Scotland
10


18.
Registrar General's Office, Scotland
2,100


Class VI


3.
Financial Assistance in Development Areas
150,000


4.
Export Credits
10


5.
Export Credits (Special Guarantees)
10


8.
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
10


16.
Ministry of Civil Aviation
10


24.
State Management Districts, Scotland
10


Class VII


3.
Public Buildings, Great Britain
10


4.
Public Buildings Overseas
90,000


9.
Stationery and Printing
245,000


Class VIII


4.
Superannuation and Retired Allowances
1,250,000


Class IX


6.
Foreign Office (German Section)
10


7.
Administration of certain African Territories
244,000


Revenue Departments


3.
Post Office
600,000




£12,168,357

Resolutions agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1951–52— REPORT [8th March]

Resolutions reported:

VOTE A. NUMBER OF LAND FORCES

That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 527,000, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of His Majesty's Crown, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952.

VOTE 1. PAY, ETC., OF THE. ARMY

That a sum, not exceeding £110,170,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952.

Resolutions agreed to.

Brigadier Thorp: On a point of order——

Mr. Speaker: No point of order can be raised. The Guillotine has fallen, and there can be no discussion on these Votes.

Resolutions reported:

VOTE 2. RESERVE FORCES, TERRITORIAL ARMY AND CADET FORCES

That a sum, not exceeding £13,640,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 100 officers for the Regular Army Reserve of Officers, 27,000, all ranks, for the Regular Reserve and 58,000, all ranks, for the Supplementary Reserve), Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 297,100, all ranks) and Cadet Forces which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952.

VOTE 8. WORKS, BUILDINGS AND LANDS

That a sum, not exceeding £28,140,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952.

VOTE 10. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES

That a sum, not exceeding £18,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952.

Resolutions agreed to.

VOTE 11. ADDITIONAL MARRIED QUARTERS

Question:
That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952," put and agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1951–52— REPORT [12th March]

Resolutions reported:

VOTE A. NUMBERS

That 143,500 Officers, Seamen and Boys and Royal Marines, who are borne on the Books of His Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine Divisions, and members of the Women's Royal Naval Service and the Naval Nursing Service, be employed for the Sea Service, for the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1952.

VOTE 1. PAY, &C, OF THE ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL MARINES

That a sum, not exceeding £47,151,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952.

VOTE 2. VICTUALLING AND CLOTHING FOR THE NAVY

That a sum, not exceeding £17,517,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of victualling and clothing for the Navy, including the cost of victualling establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952.

VOTE 4. CIVILIANS EMPLOYED ON FLEET SERVICES

That a sum, not exceeding £6,292,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of civilians employed on fleet services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952.

VOTE 6. SCIENTIFIC SERVICES

That a sum, not exceeding £12,231,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of scientific services, including a Grant in Aid to the National Institute of Oceanography, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952.

VOTE 10. WORKS, BUILDINGS AND REPAIRS AT HOME AND ABROAD

That a sum, not exceeding £13,067,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and repairs at home and abroad, including the cost of superintendence, purchase of sites, grants and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952.

VOTE 11. MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES

That a sum, not exceeding £5,853,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of various miscellaneous effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st March, 1952.

VOTE 13. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES

That a sum, not exceeding £15,035,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in


course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952.

Resolutions agreed to.

VOTE 15. ADDITIONAL MARRIED QUARTERS

Question:
That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters at home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952,"put and agreed to.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1951–52— REPORT [7th March]

Resolution reported:

VOTE A. NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE

That a number of officers, airmen and airwomen, not exceeding 270,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952.

Resolution agreed to.

Mr. Lionel Heald: On a point of order——

Mr. Speaker: We cannot have points of order. The Guillotine falls at 9.30, and nothing more can be said.

Mr. Heald: Can we ask for your guidance?

Mr. Speaker: No, not now. I have to put the Questions, 'by Standing Orders, straight away.
Bill to provide during 12 months for the discipline and regulation of the Army and Air Force ordered to be brought in by Mr. Strachey, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Michael Stewart and Mr. Crawley.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL

"to provide, during 12 months, for the discipline and regulation of the Army and the Air Force, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 82.]

AIR ESTIMATES, 1951–52— REPORT [6th March]

Resolutions reported:

VOTE 1. PAY, &C, OF THE AIR FORCE

That a sum, not exceeding £77,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &c, of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952.

VOTE 2. RESERVE AND AUXILIARY SERVICES

That a sum, not exceeding £1,569,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the reserve and auxiliary services (to a number not exceeding 76,800, all ranks, for the Royal Air Force Reserve and 13,100, all ranks, for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force) which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952.

VOTE 7. AIRCRAFT AND STORES

That a sum, not exceeding £132,750,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of aircraft and stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952.

VOTE 8. WORKS AND LANDS

That a sum, not exceeding £37,500,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of works and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952.

VOTE 9. MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES

That a sum, not exceeding £2,195,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including a grant in aid to the Royal Society, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952.

VOTE 10. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES

That a sum, not exceeding £4,045,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952.

Resolutions agreed to.

VOTE 11. ADDITIONAL MARRIED QUARTERS

Question:
That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952,"put and agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS REPORT [14th March]

Resolutions reported:
That, towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st day of March, 1951, the sum of £13,835,847 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st day of March, 1952, the sum of £1,471,421,100 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolutions agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Jay.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL

"to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and fifty, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-one and one thousand nine hundred and fifty-two"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 79.]

Orders of the Day — DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Air Transport Profits) (Greece) Order, 1951 be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 23rd January."—[Mr. Jay.]

Mr. Lionel Heald: On a point of order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of the Report on Supply? You have ruled that no discussion is allowed on this matter. I should like to ask for your guidance on this. Many hundreds of millions of pounds have been voted and no discussion has been permitted. I want to know whether that is in accordance with the usual procedure. I am advised that it is not so, and I would like to know why that is, and whether it is part of the Government's new policy.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member has no business to make that sort of statement. Here are Standing Orders by which this is specifically laid down by this Parliament and other Parliaments, and what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said is no point of order at all.

9.39 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): I beg to move,
hat an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that, on the ratification by the President of the French Republic of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the Draft of an Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (France) Order, 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd January, an Order may be made in the form of that Draft.
I would like, briefly, to ask the House to approve the two Motions on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer

relating to two draft Double Taxation Orders with France and Greece. The more important of the two follows a recent Double Taxation Agreement with France, signed in December, and the other a more limited agreement with Greece concerning taxes on air transport profits.

Mr. Assheton: On a point of order. Is it proper for the hon. Gentleman to discuss both orders together?

Mr. Speaker: The first one has been disposed of. We are taking the second one. If by chance the other one went through rather quickly—as it were, by mistake—that is not my fault, but the fault of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey (Mr. Heald).

Mr. Jay: I understand we are discussing the second Motion relating to the agreement with France. That convention, the more important of the two, follows the Double Taxation Agreements concluded by the United Kingdom since 1945 with the United States and a number of other countries. It affects United Kingdom Income Tax, Surtax and Profits Tax, and the French Proportional Tax—part of their Income Tax—and the French Progressive Surtax on individuals, and also the Company Tax and Undistributed Profits Tax.
Certain classes of income derived from one country by residents in the other, under the agreement are exempt from tax altogether in the former country. Those are certain trading profits not arising from the existence of permanent establishments in the other country, shipping and air transport profits, and certain other forms of income. Government salaries and pensions, of course, are normally taxed by the paying Government only. In addition, by this agreement the rate of French tax on dividends paid by United Kingdom companies out of profits earned in France is to be reduced from 18 per cent. to 10 per cent. so long as the undistributed income of the companies is charged to the present French Undistributed Profits Tax. French companies earning profits here are, of course, already paying United Kingdom Income Tax and Profits Tax at the rate of 10 per cent., and will continue to do so. On Surtax, under the agreement United Kingdom residents are to be exempt from French Progressive Surtax, as it is called, on income derived from


France, and reciprocally French residents will also be exempt from United Kingdom Surtax on dividends and interest received from United Kingdom companies. Finally, where any income continues under the agreement to bear tax in both countries, relief is given for tax payable in the country where the income originates.
I think everybody will agree that this is a valuable and useful agreement, that it adds to our general structure of Double Taxation Agreements, that it is fair and desirable from the point of view of both countries, and that it deserves the approval of the House.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman has moved this Motion in brief terms, and I confess I do not follow all the reasons which he adduced in favour of it, but I think one can say this in principle, that we all agree that these Double Taxation Agreements are very much to the benefit of both countries, and we can give hearty support to these orders in principle. Of course, as a matter of commonsense, the taxes which the unfortunate citizens of this country have to bear at the present time are so grievous that it must be certainly intolerable to think that they should have to pay double taxation if that can possibly be avoided.
I have certain questions to ask the hon. Gentleman with regard to this rather lengthy and detailed Order. As far as I can understand it, this Order comes from the provisions of Section 51, 52 and 53 of the Finance Act, 1945, and from the Seventh Schedule—I think it is—of that Act. Under Section 53 of that Act regulations were made in the Order No. 466 of 1946, and pursuant to those regulations these various Double Taxation Agreements have been recorded in the form of orders.
My first question is, am I right in assuming that this is the second agreement made with France by way of double taxation relief arrangements? So far as I understand it, the only previous order which I have been able to trace relating to France is Order 164 of 1947. What I should like the hon. Gentleman to do, if he has the leave of the House so to do, or some other representative of the Government, is to explain at rather greater length how this Order represents an advance on the previous agreement of 1947?
I have a number of detailed questions to put to the hon. Gentleman with regard

to this Order. The first relates to the date. I see that this agreement was made, according to the last paragraph on page 11:
on the fourteenth day of December, one thousand nine hundred and fifty.
Why, if the agreement was made on that date, which is set out and recorded in detail, has it taken so long for it to come before this House? It would seem a rather long interval to take place if, in fact, as I am willing to accept, the agreement was made so long ago as 14th December.
The second point is with regard to its duration. I think the hon. Gentleman should have made it clear how long this agreement is to persist. The Explanatory Note is rather misleading on the point. It says in the last sentence:
The Convention is to take effect for the fiscal year 1950–51.
But that, I take it, is not the limit of its effect; because according to Article XXVI it would appear that the Convention continues in force indefinitely, but that the contracting parties have a right, not earlier than 1954, on giving notice, to terminate it.

Mr. Jay: Perhaps I might answer that question straight away. The agreement is to run for five years for certain, after which it may be terminated, on due notice, by either side.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I think that is a matter of importance which should be fully understood by all those involved.
The next question is a matter on which I personally would like some explanation. When we come to look at the title to the Schedule to the Order, we see that it is stated that this is a
convention between His Majesty in respect of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the President of the French Republic for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income.
What I should like to have made clear is the respects in which this Order carries out the intention:
of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income.
I quite follow the provision which relates to the avoidance of double taxation, but what I do not understand is the respects in which the Order will prevent fiscal evasion. If one is to compare this


Order with the one it replaces, one of the matters of interest to note is that in regard to the Order 164 of 1947 the agreement there says nothing at all about this prevention of fiscal evasion. Either those words mean something or they do not mean anything at all, and I would like the hon. Gentleman to explain to what extent this Order, and others like it, do help to build up a structure to prevent that fiscal evasion.
My next question is with regard to the first article of the Order. That deals with the taxes which are the subject of the present convention. It sets out the French taxes which are affected and the United Kingdom taxes which are affected. Paragraph 2 of that Article also states that the Convention shall apply to other taxation of a substantially similar character imposed in parts of the United Kingdom subsequent to the date of signature. I ask the hon. Gentleman if there had been any other additional taxation imposed since the date of the signature. That is a minor point.
What I think would be more interesting would be for the House to be told, if it is possible to do it in terms of easy comparison, the comparative structures of taxation. In other words, how the two systems of taxation compare and which country is benefiting more than the other from the effects. I think it is all very well to have general words in the Article, but I think that now we have an opportunity of considering the Order in some detail, it is of interest to know actually how much the taxpayer of this country is benefiting, and something of the comparative structures of taxes of the two countries. I am not seeking to invite the hon. Gentleman to go into any long discourse, but if there is some simple formula, I think that would be of interest to the House.
My next question relates to Article 2, which contains a series of definitions of certain terms used in the rest of the Order. One of the very material matters in that list of definitions is, of course, the definition of the territories to which this Convention is to apply. This is a point of substance in which I know some of my hon. Friends are interested. Article I of the 1947 Order, which again consists of a list of definitions, is quite specific that colonies, overseas territories, protectorates and mandated territories of both high

contracting parties are excluded. That is an expression of specific exclusion in Article I of the 1947 Order. This Order is expressed rather differently. I would very much like to know the reason for that. If the hon. Gentleman will peruse again Article 2 he will see that the term "United Kingdom" means Great Britain and Northern Ireland, excluding the Channel Islands and Isle of Man. The term "France" means metropolitan France and excludes Algeria, the overseas departments and other territories of the French union, which is a rather different term of definition from the expressed exclusion in the previous Order of 1947.
There is another indication of the territories to which this Order is to apply if one looks at Article XXIII, which appears to provide for the extension of the Convention to other territories of high contracting parties. The territories to which this Article applies are, in relation to His Majesty the King, any territories other than the United Kingdom for whose international relations the United Kingdom is responsible, and, in relation to the French Republic, any department, protectorate or other overseas territory for whose international relations France is responsible. I ask the hon. Gentleman to be quite specific about the effect of these alterations.
To what extent is the geographical purview of this Order different from the Order of 1947, and to what extent does the permissive extension Clause of Article XXIII differ from the exclusion of 1947, because there are various territories associated with both contracting parties whose status, I am given to believe, is in some doubt under this Order. I should like the Financial Secretary, because this is one of the most crucial matters in the Order, to be quite specific as to which territories are affected, which territories are excluded, and to which territories this permissive extension can apply.
I make no apology for bringing up these points, because this is the only opportunity we have of scrutinising these matters and trying to put forward some submissions as to why these various complications are introduced. I should now like the Financial Secretary to explain what may seem to him to be a small point, but which is of some interest at any rate to lawyers. In Article II (1) (e) there is a definition of the term "person." It says that


The term 'person' means:

(i) any physical person;
(ii) any unincorporated body of physical persons; and
(iii) any body corporate;

I have been trying to see whether I can possibly assist the House on this matter. I have looked at the Swedish Order, which is the Order upon which this Order is to some considerable extent based. We have there a definition of the term "person" in quite different terms. According to that Order, the term includes
any body of persons, corporate or not corporate
If the Swedish Order is the basis for this Order, which I believe to be the case, why should we have a different definition of the term "person"?
When we come to the 1947 Order dealing with France, we see that the definition is the same as in this case. Is there any difference between the two sets of definitions in these three Orders? It seems to be quite unintelligible and unreasonable that there should be any attempt to make any difference in these two definitions. It may be that the Government have a reason, in which case we shall be glad to know what it is. Questions of definition are not unimportant, because according to their precise interpretation decisions as to many thousands of pounds may be taken. It is possible that the Exchequer may lose considerable sums of money if the Government have slipped up in their definition, and individuals may also be penalised.
Under Article II (1) (f) we come to a definition of the words "company." The term "company" is said to mean "any body corporate." That would not seem to be an unreasonable definition, but when we look back to the 1947 Order, which this Order seeks to revise, we see that the term "company" means something quite different. In that Order, "company" means "any body corporate," with the qualification,
which carries on operations for profit whatever may be the title it bears.
What is the reason for removing that qualification? I can agree that the terms of the 1947 Order may possibly be repugnant to Members opposite because it contains a reference to the making of profits. It may be that because the making of profits has become so unattractive and unrealistic, following the course

of events between 1947 and 1951, and the progress of nationalisation, that this is the reason this qualifying phrase has been left out. We are entitled to be told whether there is intended to be any difference, and whether there is any difference, between those two definitions, and why the Government have changed the terms of the new Order. Passing from what may seem to some
hon. Members to be rather the dull, legal and technical side, we come to something different. If any hon. Members have read this Order they will realise how exhilarating are the subsequent items that we have to consider. There are 11 pages of exhilaration. In Article III, we get away from the definitions. The Article deals with the main part of the agreement and seems to contain a welcome conception. The idea behind Article III is that profits made in France by a British enterprise should not be subject to French taxation unless they have been made from a permanent establishment situated in France. That is rather different from the 1947 Order, but it is a sensible conception and one which I think we on this side of the House would welcome.
I should like the Minister to tell the House in what respect that differs from the 1947 conception. If he can explain to us the process of development from 1947 to this Order, it would be of importance. The continuation of this process of double taxation relief is of very great importance to the economy of the country.
Article III has a reference to one other matter about which I should like further information. After dealing with the question of the permanent establishment, the Article goes on to say:
If it carries on a trade or business as aforesaid, tax may be imposed on those profits by France but only on so much of them as is attributable to that permanent establishment; provided that nothing in this paragraph shall affect the provisions of the law of France, as it stands at the date of signature of this Convention, as respects the taxation of profits of non-residents from the business of insurance.
I should like to know exactly what are the provisions referred to. What is the effect of that reservation? It is a reservation of some importance to those carrying on business in the country.
There is another point which I want to put. I hope the hon. Member will not think that I am asking him about too many matters of detail. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] If as I go along there


is any hon. Member opposite who has the answer to any of these questions, I shall readily give way in order that he can tell it to me. I do not believe there is one single Member on the Government benches, apart from the Treasury Bench, who has even read this Order, and in those circumstances it is an impertinence for them to make these interruptions. We are exercising our right as a legislature of passing a highly important and highly technical matter, which may affect large sums of money, a great many individuals, and the public purse to a substantial extent. It is only worthy of this House that we should give this Order proper attention and detailed consideration. As I say, if any hon. Member opposite except those on the Front Bench have read the Order and can answer one of the points I am raising, I will gladly give way in order that he or she can do so.
I have dealt with Article III and I now come to Article IV. That, again, deals with a very technical matter and I do not want to read out the whole of this article. [HON. MEMBERS: "Do."] It is a little difficult to make the points without giving the context in which they are made. I particularly do not want to take up time unnecessarily, and all I say in regard to Article IV is, what is the tax referred to under Article 39 of the Decree of 9th December, 1948? That is putting the question in a very simple form without wearying the House by reading out all the details of the Article.
My next question relates to Article VI. From some of the comments of hon. Members opposite, they may possibly be relieved that I am not going to deal with Article V. I wonder if they know what it has reference to. Article VI is one of the matters which I think the hon. Member referred to in his very brief introductory statement. This, again, is a matter of very considerable importance. It deals with the impact of the Profits Tax. He did say something about it, but it was very quickly said, and I am afraid that I was not quite able to follow exactly what he did say with regard to the impact of the Profits Tax.
According to the Swedish Order, in Article V it is stated that the industrial and commercial profits of a Swedish enterprise shall be charged to United

Kingdom Profits Tax only at the lower rate. That is perfectly clear in the case of the Swedish Order, but in the case of the French Order the situation is nothing like so clear. I should be glad to be told whether it is accurate that French enterprises are only going to be charged at the lower rate of the Profits Tax.

Mr. Jay: I should like to assure the hon. and learned Gentleman straight away that what he says is correct.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am very relieved that there is one of my questions which the hon. Member has been able to answer.

Mr. Jay: That was the only one which the hon. Gentleman answered himself.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman flatters me, and if he accepts the propositions which I put forward then no doubt he is on very sound lines. Nevertheless, that, I think, is not of as much interest to the House as the effect of this Order, and the Government views and intentions in regard to it. If he says that the effect of the Article is precisely the same as the effect of the Article of the Swedish Order, then I ask why is it not given in the same simple language? Why adopt this very different and complicated wording to say what is precisely the same thing?
I have a point or two to put on the next three Articles, but I must forbear and go on to Article IX which says:
Dividends and interest paid by a company which is a resident of the United Kingdom to a resident of France, who is subject to tax in France in respect thereof and does not carry on trade or business in the United Kingdom through a permanent establishment situated therein, shall be exempt from United Kingdom sur-tax.
Some hon. Members may think that is fairly simple in itself. I am not sure that it really is quite as simple, or even whether it really sounds simple. When we come to look again at the Swedish Order, upon which this one appears to be based, we find that there is a very similar Article—Article VII (a)—but there is also a new Article, a second paragraph, which says:
Where a company which is a resident of one of the territories derives profits or incomes from sources within the other territory, there shall not be imposed in that other territory any form of taxation on dividends paid by the company to persons not resident in that other territory or any tax in the nature of undistributed profits tax on undistributed profits


of the company whether or not those dividends are undistributed profits representing in whole or in part profits or income so derived.
Why is it considered necessary to put in that Order the further paragraph dealing with this matter which is not found in the corresponding part of the French Order? I assume that there must be an explanation of that fact. If there is an explanation and the hon. Gentleman knows it, I do not propose in this case to offer a possible explanation, for I would much rather hear from him what exactly is the reason for that fact.
There are various other matters, but I will pass on to Article XIII. If the hon. Gentleman has been keeping a check on my questions, he will find that this is my thirteenth question. According to that Article it is stated that:
… remuneration, including pensions, paid by or out of funds created by one of the high contracting parties to any individual for services rendered to that party in the discharge of governmental functions shall be exempt from tax in the territories of the other high contracting party, unless the individual is a national of that other party without being a national of the first mentioned party.
So, by that paragraph of that Article, remuneration, including pensions, earned by the discharge of governmental functions is exempt, subject to the single reservation. Paragraph 4 of that Article states that:
The provisions of paragraph (1) of this Article shall not apply to payments in respect of services rendered in connection with any trade or business carried on by either of the High Contracting Parties for the purposes of profit.
Is that a reference to nationalised undertakings? Is that the object of the inclusion of that paragraph? Will the hon. Gentleman explain the provisions of those two paragraphs compared with the provisions of Article XV? Article XV says:
… pensions (other than a pension of the kind referred to in paragraph (1) or (2) of Article XIII) or any annuity, derived from sources within France by an individual who is resident in the United Kingdom and subject to United Kingdom tax in respect thereof, shall be exempt from French tax.
If I understand that properly, all pensions are exempt from French tax. What about remuneration derived from sources within France by an individual who is a resident of the United Kingdom? Why is that excluded from the purview of this Order? Why is there this difference between Article XIII and Article XV in regard to that matter?
I have only one final question to ask—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go ahead with it!"]—or possibly two. Article XIII (3, e)refers to a considerable number of Acts of Parliament. It deals with the payment of injury and disablement pensions and refers to two Acts of 1914, the Injuries in War (Compensation) Act, 1915, and the two Acts of 1939, the Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act, 1939, and the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939. If the hon. Gentleman will look back to the 1947 Order, he will see that there is no reference in it to those two 1939 Acts of Parliament. Why have they been put in? Are there a number of other Acts of Parliament which have to be incorporated in the terms of this sort of Agreement?
There are quite a number of other points to be asked about this complicated business, but my final question is with regard to double Estate Duty. I think I am right in assuming that is not within the purview of this Order, but may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether there are any Double Estate Orders in fact, and does he consider that in future the Government will be able to incorporate that sort of provision in this structure for the relief of double taxation?
As I have said before, while we give general welcome to this Order, we are entitled to have definite answers upon the points I have raised. If the hon. Gentleman will only give full and frank answers to these points, they will be of great benefit to those who have to seek to interpret at a later stage this complicated tangle of words.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Maudling: I want first to refer to the date on which this Order has been introduced. I understand that similar proposals were introduced into the French National Assembly on 26th January, so it seems that a considerable interval has passed before this important Order has been brought to the attention of the House.
Next, I want to turn to its economic effects. I believe it is not the general principle on which these Orders are negotiated to try to effect too nice a balance between the concessions made by one country and the other, or between the gains to be made by one country or another, either by individual taxpayers or by the Treasuries concerned. However.


it would be of value to the House to hear from the hon. Gentleman some estimate of the effect of this Order, in financial terms, on the citizens and Treasuries of either party to the agreement.
Broadly speaking, one would expect that Double Taxation Agreements would be of benefit to capital exporting nations. That, presumably, is why certain nations, such as the South American countries, who are capital importing nations, have not been eager to conclude these agreements. We, as a capital exporting nation, should stand to gain quite considerably from this Order, so it would be interesting to hear some details of its financial and economic effects.
I believe figures were published by the Bank of England giving an estimate of the British capital now invested in France. Can the Financial Secretary give us similar figures? I, for one, was surprised how relatively small was the British capital still invested in France. In fact, I would judge that the major economic benefit which would accrue to this country from this Order would be in respect of taxation liabilities of British shipping companies and British civil aviation companies. After all, in introducing this Order, the hon. Gentleman gave us a short, almost cursory examination, and so far as I can recall he did not enter in any way into the economic consequences of the Orders.
We are hoping to obtain certain benefits from this Agreement. What will the French gain from it in exchange? So far as I can see from reading the Order, the main benefit will be the exemption from British Surtax of dividends paid by United Kingdom companies and received by French residents. I should have thought it was most exceptional for any French resident in practice to pay Surtax on dividends arising in the United Kingdom. I believe the position is that where a French resident draws an income from this country in excess of £2,000 a year, he becomes liable for Surtax.
The Treasury may be able to raise an assessment where the £2,000 arises from one single source of income, but I doubt very much whether the Treasury or the Revenue authorities are able in practice to raise assessments where the £2,000 income of a French resident is derived from a number of separate United

Kingdom sources. I doubt very much, therefore, whether the amount of tax now collected by or on behalf of the hon. Gentleman in respect of United Kingdom dividends paid to French residents for Surtax amounts to more than a row of beans. If so, what benefit will the French obtain from their side of the agreement?
Another question which I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman concerns a particular French tax—which I think is called the ImpÔt de Solidarité Nationale—of 5 per cent., which was imposed not very long after the war. I should be interested to know to what extent this impost is affected by the terms of the Order, because it has been a very serious matter for a number of British companies operating in France.
Then there is the question of the Colonial Territories. By one of the later provisions of the Order—Article XXIII, I think—it is possible to extend its provisions to the Colonial dependencies of the contracting parties. It is most important that that should be done as soon as possible. Let me give an example of what might happen under the Order. There might be a subsidiary or affiliated British company operating in the Ivory Coast or in Dahomey which might be subject to a local dividends tax and then to a French profits tax before the money is transmitted to this country. As I understand it, the Order will reduce the French profits tax element in that taxation to a maximum of 10 per cent., but it will not in any way reduce the element represented by the local dividends tax in the Colonial dependencies. Of course, the thing works the other way where French residents are drawing income from British Colonial Territories. It is most important that this extension should be made as quickly as possible, not only on the question of English income drawn from French territories or of French income drawn from English dependencies, but on income passing between one Colonial territory and another.
Another point which I should like to raise is the question of personal allowances. The Explanatory Note refers to this point when it says that residents of France will be——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is opposing the Motion. Of course, there can be no Amendment to the Order, and


therefore the points which are being raised must be in opposition to the Motion.

Mr. Maudling: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am seeking clarification of the effects of the Order before being able to decide exactly the extent to which one might support it.
A point which arises from the Explanatory Note is that residents of France will be entitled to the same personal allowances as British subjects resident abroad, and the corresponding arrangements are extended by France to British residents. This ties up with the point raised earlier by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). I understand that the arrangements for British subjects resident abroad to which reference is made are that the allowances which a British subject resident abroad can have on his income in this matter are Based on the ratio between his income from U.K. sources and his total income. This concession is apparently to be extended by the Order to French residents in respect of income drawn from this country, and in order to ascertain for the purposes of the Order the amount of personal allowance which a French resident shall be allowed to claim, it will be necessary for the British Treasury to have a statement of the total income of the French resident.
I think this is a very significant point because if the benefit of this Order is to be obtained for a French resident and vice versa,for an English resident, the individual concerned resident in France will have to make a statement of his total income to the British Treasury. This ties up with the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral. To what extent is this Order intended to provide or encourage opportunities of avoiding fiscal evasion? To what extent will information as to the affairs of British taxpayers not resident in France be passed to the French Treasury and to what extent are the tax gatherers of the two countries to get together on this?
There are one or two points in the Order itself which I should like to raise. In Article I, subsection (2) it is stated:
The present Convention shall also apply to any other taxes of a substantially similar character imposed in France or the United Kingdom.

Would the hon. Gentleman consider that a tax of the character of the Special Contribution would be of "a similar character," because at one time the Government treated that as a tax on income and at another time as a tax on capital, and I see that in Article XI there is a reference to
any tax in respect of gains from the sale, transfer, or exchange of capital assets.
Is it intended by that to imply that a tax on capital gains is the same thing as a tax on income? If it is, that is the first time I have heard of any responsible Treasury official suggesting that there is a similarity between the two. It may be very interesting to find their minds working in that direction at this time of the year.
Article II, subsection (2), as I understand it, is intended to make a special provision in a case where only part of the profits arising are transmitted to the other country and only the transmitted part is to be treated as taxable under this Order. How would this principle affect the taxation of profits in countries like the Argentine?
In Articles III and IV there are two provisions which seem at the moment to be quite unworkable. I think we ought to hear from the Financial Secretary how he considers these things can be worked. In subsection 3 of Article III, and again in Article V, there are provisions whereby the profits in France or in England, whichever it is, shall be reduced or altered by reference to a wholly notional conception. Subsection (3) says:
Where an enterprise of one of the territories carries on a trade or business in the other territory through a permanent establishment situated therein, there shall be attributed to that permanent establishment the industrial or commercial profits which it might be expected to derive in that other territory if it were an independent enterprise engaged in the same or similar activities under the same or similar conditions and dealing at arm's length with the enterprise of which it is a permanent establishment.
In other words, if it is not independent it is to be treated as if it were independent, and if it is independent, it is to be treated as if it were not.
My last point arises under Article X, subsection (3), which refers to royalties. It says:
Where any royalty exceeds a fair and reasonable consideration in respect of the rights for which it is paid, the exemption


provided by the present Article shall apply only to so much of the royalty as represents such fair and reasonable consideration.
I can find no provision in the Order which says who is to decide what is "a fair and reasonable consideration" and how it is to be determined at any time what is fair and what is more than fair. In view of the important interest of the Government in many royalties, such as oil royalties in different parts of the world, it seems important that we should not accept the principle whereby it should be left in the air for anyone to say whether a certain royalty is more than fair and reasonable. In general, I am sure the Order is to be welcomed, as any reduction in taxation is welcomed. That is probably why this side can welcome the Order and the other side do not. I think in general it will contribute to the flow of trade between the two countries, but there are important points which ought to be cleared up by the hon. Gentleman before the House is prepared to give their approval to this Order.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: I am one of those who have pressed for this Order to come into being for two or three years. I hope I shall not be jeopardising my right to later criticism if I start by saying that I come to praise Caesar and not to bury him. I think the levity on the other side is rather misplaced. On the effect of this Order depends not only the actual profits of businesses already established on both sides of the Channel but, thinking in terms of the integration of the joint manufacture of armaments and joint economic effort, the establishment of a great many future businesses, where the actual resources of both countries can be used to the good of both countries. The use of inventions and ideas of this country for establishing new businesses in France could not be done until we have some system such as provided in this Order.
I happen to be one of those affected by this, one of those who have established a business in France. I declare my interest straight away. That is the reason why I have been studying the Order. I have a few points to ask about it. Article 1, paragraph (2) of the Schedule provides that:
The present Convention shall also apply to any other taxes of a substantially similar

character imposed in France or the United Kingdom subsequently to the date of signature of the present Convention.
Does the taxe de solidaritécome under that heading? The Government have rather a poor record on that point. When representations were made to them from many sources that this tax was very unfair on many British businesses established in France, although it was obvious that the tax was being wrongly demanded, because it could not be legally imposed under the Act of 1886, we could get no sort of help at all from the Government in avoiding the effect of a tax that should not have been imposed.
When we talk of "substantially similar character" does that mean the possible representation of a capital tax. Should that arise, neatly disguised in some other form, should France, unfortunately following the bad example of this country, impose something like the capital levy tax we have seen in this country, will this paragraph help to protect both sides in this matter?
The other point to which my hon. and learned Friend—who opened too briefly but very well—referred, arises in Article 11, paragraph (1) (b:)
The term (France) means metropolitan France, and excludes Algeria, the overseas departments and other territories of the French Union;
Since these negotiations were started there has been a complete change in the status of Indo-China. Her status has been materially altered by the Pau Agreement of last year and I should like to know from the hon. Gentleman whether that change of status will permit those firms who are established there the same right of setting off taxation referred to as in metropolitan France, or whether the exclusions in sub-paragraph (b)apply to Indo-China. This is a very important question, because this country has invested a great deal of capital in Indo-China in past years.
At the moment every effort is being made to bring the economies of Indo-China and Malaya closer together and to make them work together. It will militate heavily against that if this Order does not apply to them. Taking it by and large, I believe that this is a very good movement, but there is the curious anomaly that while we have, or are about to have, this particular tax relief, the


anomaly exists that France and Belgium already have a mutual tax relief system, we have not one with Belgium, though we have with France. Unless we are to have considerable disequilibrium, the next logical step is surely that we should have a system of double taxation relief between Belgium and this country. After we have heard the hon. Gentleman's answers we shall know whether it ought to be in the same form. If the hon. Gentleman is not well primed, or from his own knowledge and genius is not able to answer the questions, the technical approval which we are supposed to express may well be withdrawn.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Assheton: I am glad that this Order dealing with double taxation relief in connection with France is more comprehensive than the Order which was passed earlier in the evening in connection with Greece, an Order about which I understood from the Financial Secretary that he was going to say something. I am sorry that we did not hear anything about it because that Order was a very limited one. I can only hope that it was a first step and that further Orders will be negotiated later.
The French Order is certainly rather a complicated one. It has only 26 Articles. I am glad that it is not 39 like the Articles of Religion. If it had, the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) would have taken a great deal longer over his explanation to the House than he actually did. But for the advantage which the House had of hearing his speech, we would have known little about the Order, because the Financial Secretary did not tell us much.
A great many of these Orders have been passed and during the last Parliament, because of the great pressure of Government business, there was not as much time and opportunity for discussion of them as there is today, when there is so little Government business about. We have an opportunity for giving rather closer attention now to these Orders than we were able to give in the past. It is clear from the speeches of my hon. Friends behind me that a great deal ought to be said, and that not enough has been said in the past. I hope very much that there may be further opportunities for

examining these Orders. I hope that the Financial Secretary can assure us that he proposes to give a reply, by leave of the House, later on.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The hon. Gentleman does not need to ask leave of the House. He is the mover of the Motion.

Mr. Assheton: I apologise for overlooking that point. I am glad that no difficulty will arise. I feared some hon. Members opposite might not encourage the hon. Gentleman to speak again. I hope he will answer the principal points raised. The hon. and learned Member for Wirral made a very carefully thought out and well argued speech. His points were of considerable significance. I hope that the Financial Secretary will answer these points and particularly those on definitions.

Mr, Daines: What is the right hon. Gentleman trying to say?

Mr. Assheton: I am afraid that I did not catch the hon. Member's remark.

Mr. Daines: What I said was—what is the right hon. Gentleman trying to say? He has been talking for five minutes. [Interruption.]

Mr. Assheton: I am sorry if the hon. Member was not able to hear me, that I did not speak loud enough. I was under the impression that what I was saying was quite comprehensible, as the hon. Member will see if he reads HANSARD tomorrow.
There are three points which I wish to put to the Financial Secretary apart from the questions already raised. One is the question of double Estate Duty. May I take it that there is no provision in this Order for dealing with double Estate Duty, because in the Act passed by the Government in 1945 provision was made for such orders but I have not seen them come along.

Mr. Jay: Mr. Jay indicated assent.

Mr. Assheton: I gather from Article XX that the amount of credit to be given in the United Kingdom for French tax on dividends from French companies is rather different from previous orders. I do not know if the Financial Secretary agrees with that point. If so, I should like him to account for it.
I think the proposal about French taxes on profits of United Kingdom companies


in France is difficult to understand. I do not understand the difference in the proposals for taxation on branch and subsidiary companies, and if the hon. Gentleman would explain the point it would help the House considerably. As he is aware, many companies operate in France through branches rather than through subsidiary companies and it is not clear to me how this Order will affect branches as opposed to subsidiary companies. I gather that France will not repay tax deducted at source before the date of ratification. I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether that particular point appeared in any previous Order or not? It struck me as being something new.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), in his very interesting speech, asked about the economic and financial effects of this Order, and that is a subject on which I think we are entitled to hear a little more from the Government Front Bench. After all, these Orders are very important although very complicated, so complicated that very few hon. Members appear to have taken the trouble to study them at all. When we realise what an enormous effect taxation has on our trade in various parts of the world, I think this is a matter which hon. Members, particularly those representing industrial constituencies, should give a great deal more attention to than they have done in the past. I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to answer the points put to him, and I have no doubt there are other points which others of my hon. Friends wish to put.

Mr. R. J. Taylor (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): Mr. R. J. Taylor (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury) rose in his place, and claimed to move,"That the Question be now put."

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Question,
That an humble address be presented to His Majesty, praying that on the ratification by the President of the French Republic of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the Draft of an Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (France) Order, 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd January, an Order may be made in the form of that Draft, "put acordingly and agreed.

Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or members of His Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — AIR NAVIGATION ORDER

10.44 p.m.

Air Commodore Harvey: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order in Council, dated 27th February, 1951, entitled the Air Navigation (Amendment) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 319), a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th February, be annulled.
I am sorry that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House must be detained this evening. I say that with great sincerity, because I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite are just as concerned about the safe navigation of British aircraft as we are on this side of the House. I am pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation is present, because he has considerable practical experience in Transport Command, and will be able to elucidate the points in doubt.
The first point to which I wish to refer is paragraph 1 (6). This deals with the flying instructors' ratings. At present there is a panel to deal with flying instructors' tests and passing for the flying clubs, or rather, light aeroplanes. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if this Order means that the Ministry of Civil Aviation intends to circumvent the panel because, as things are, there are also airlines and nationalised Corporations, as well as charter companies, which have flying instructors passing on test flights, and so on. Who are the "approved persons" referred to in the Order? I do not know, and the facts are not made clear in the Order. I have taken the opportunity in the last few days to question pilots, and they are gravely concerned about this Order. That is the reason why I, and my hon. Friends, are praying against it to-night. Will there be a panel of professional pilots of large airliners who will examine other pilots?
My second point concerns sub-paragraph (8) which deals with radio failings—[Interruption.]The Leader of the House seems to be amused, but he travels by aircraft, and is he not concerned with the safe navigation of British aircraft? The regulations should be clear for the captains of our aircraft. This deals with radio failings and, as I see it, means the removal of the proviso in Article 31 (2) (c). This appears to remove the pilot's powers of discretion on occasion. In the event of radio failure in the past, in the


air or on the ground, it has been up to the commander of the aircraft to decide the appropriate course of action. That is right, because he is equivalent to the captain of a liner at sea.
Hon. Members opposite are certainly not very interested in their nationalised Air Corporations, which, incidentally, have lost something like £45 million, since they came into being. Here we are, trying to do our best to ensure safety for those who travel in British aircraft, but there is not one hon. Member opposite, apart from those on the Treasury bench. I hope that the constituents of hon. Members will take them to task tomorrow evening—if hon. Members get to their constituencies.
Let me try to explain, if anyone opposite is interested, that there might be an aircraft with a captain in charge using it as an air ambulance. He would be doing important work in a foreign country, flying home a case for a surgical operation. As it stands, the Order would preclude the captain of that air ambulance from taking off with an urgent hospital case; he might be precluded because of some trifling defect which would not in any way affect the safety of the aircraft. Yet the machine, and the patient, would be on the ground, unable to move.
There is the introduction of the new radio maintenance engineers licence, which I understand falls on 1st April. Ministers of the Government opposite usually choose 1st April for vesting new undertakings, including the new Food Corporation in East Africa. But the operators in aircraft, and crews, might find themselves in very serious difficulty because of this Order. The crews have to fly round with these manuals, and with all the duties that have to be performed, combating weather conditions, and so on they have enough to do. They have to understand orders, but their task will be made all the more difficult by the vagueness of this Order. I understand that when this new licence for radio engineers comes into force, there will only be a mere handful of men to hold such a licence. There will only be about six and certainly less than a dozen.
I suggest that the Regulations should be amended to empower the holder of a first-class wireless telegraphy operator's licence to carry out

temporary repairs. What is the point of making these important points if the Parliamentary Secretary will not give me his attention? I think I have his attention now. This is very important. I do not know if he heard what I said just now, but will he consider amending this regulation to enable first-class wireless telegraphy operators to have the power to carry out temporary repairs to the radio sets? That would help us to get over our immediate difficulties.

Mr. Peter Roberts: Would my hon. and gallant Friend tell me in which paragraph it says that only radio engineers shall do this work?

Air Commodore Harvey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but the point I am trying to make is that there is a new licence coming into force on 1st April and there are only a few holders of the licence.
Considerable confusion exists at the moment among airline operators, captains and crews. I should like to suggest a new paragraph which would make the position clear to all concerned. It would read:
In the event of radio failure in a control zone, an area or when the destination is in a control zone or area, the pilot must conform to the particular regulations promulgated for that zone or area designed to cover radio failures. But if the failure occurs outside such a zone or area, or when the destination is outside such a zone or area, nothing in this paragraph shall prevent the pilot from continuing the flight at his own discretion.
I put that forward as a constructive suggestion, which I and my hon. Friends think will clarify the Order.
In paragraph 10 of the First Schedule, it is laid down that when any foreign pilot or captain of a foreign airline flying to Britain or British territory enters a controlled centre like the Great London zone under I.F.R. conditions, he shall have a rating instrument. I agree with that, for it is a great ideal, but are those ratings to be up to the International Civil Aviation Organisation standards, or are the standards to be the regulations made in their own countries? Take Brazil, for example. Are the Brazilians to take their own standards for instrument rating, or will the Brazilians adhere to the International Regulations? That is a point I should like to have cleared up.
The present regulations require a very high standard in this country. I think that


is right and proper because, whatever we may say about the Corporations, they have a very great record, taken over a period, and the private companies have as well. That, to some extent, is due to the regulations. Most of them, though not all, insist upon high standards of training and efficiency; but it is no good having them if you do not enforce them, and may I say that this Government has shown itself very apt in the last six years at enforcing regulations? I hope that whenever foreign airliners come into the Greater London zone, they will be challenged, otherwise there is a very grave risk of collisions. The number of airliners is increasing and when airliners are converging in the same area, we want to be certain that they can fly accurately in I.F.R. I am told that in the U.S.A., if a pilot flies into the New York area without an instrument rating, he is not allowed into that area at all; he is diverted to another field less congested.
I am most unhappy about this Order, which is confusing, and many of my hon. Friends are just as uncertain about it as I am. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, with his practical experience in Transport Command, will want it to be clear to his colleagues who are still flying. I ask for an assurance that this Order will be annulled.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. George Ward: I beg to second the Motion.
I am quite sure that in the interests of air navigation, and, indeed, in the interests of civil aviation generally, hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that the existing regulations must be kept up to date and that it is necessary from time to time to produce amendments. I am sure they will also agree that two things are necessary about any amendments which are produced. The first thing is that they should be intelligible. I invite the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to paragraph 4 of this Statutory Instrument, in which it is stated:
In paragraph 10 of Article 17, before the word 'landing' where that word first occurs there shall be inserted the word 'intended'.
Anyone wanting to look that up in the principal Order, the Air Navigation Order, 1949, would, of course, endeavour

to find paragraph 10 of Article 17. If the hon. Gentleman has a copy of the Air Navigation Order, I would be grateful if he would turn up paragraph 10 of Article 17. Will he please turn up what he finds in that particular paragraph. The answer is a very simple one: it is that the paragraph does not exist at all. There are only six paragraphs in that particular Order. What hope has the pilot of an aircraft or anybody else to try to interpret this if he finds that sort of thing in the fourth paragraph of the Instrument? A misprint can occur, of course, but I think the hon. Gentleman will find that, if he looks up any article with ten paragraphs in it, he will not find the word "landing" at all, nor will he find it in paragraph 10 of any Articles. It is almost impossible to find what the misprint could be. I draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to this, and I beg him to see that these Instruments are produced more intelligibly and accurately.
Paragraph 10 (a) deals with the necessity for a second pilot when flying in V.F.R. conditions. This is rather important. Sub-paragraph (ii) reads:
The words 'or, in a case where in pursuance of any provision of this Order a second pilot is required as a member of the operating crew of the flying machine, as second pilot' and the words 'valid with respect to that flying machine' shall be omitted:
It is no longer necessary for the second pilot of an aircraft flying under V.F.R. conditions to hold the same rating as an instrument flying pilot as the first pilot. I think that is wrong. I think he should have the same qualifications for instrument flying as the first pilot and captain. It may be, and it very often happens, that the first pilot may want to leave his seat during the course of the flight, even in bad weather conditions, for a number of reasons.
For example, he may want to leave the cockpit if one of the passengers creates a disturbance. Although possibly the passengers may not be able to walk out, they can at least create a disturbance, and it is sometimes necessary for the captain to go back into the cabin to see what is going on. There may be an accident of a minor character. I can remember not so long ago, when flying across the Channel in thick cloud, the emergency exit blew out, and the captain came into the cabin to see what the damage was.
and what to do about it. In that case he had to hand over the control of the aircraft to the second pilot temporarily. If that is likely to happen in V.F.R. conditions, it is essential in my submission that the second pilot should hold the same qualifications and the same rating in instrument flying as the first.
It seems odd that this provision should be put in Paragraph 10 of this Order when Paragraph 18 (b)—a significant number in another context—deals with simulated instrument flight conditions, that is, when a pilot is undergoing training or practice with a screen in front of the cockpit. It is necessary, according to this paragraph of the Order that an aircraft shall not be flown in these conditions unless:
a qualified pilot (being the holder of the appropriate pilot's licence and rating) is carried in the second control seat of the aircraft for the purpose of rendering such assistance as may be necessary to the person in command thereof.
If it is necessary under simulated instrument flight conditions for the second pilot to hold these qualifications in order to lend assistance to the first pilot, why should he not hold the same qualifications under real flying conditions? It is too absurd to have one different from the other. I hope that will receive the hon. Gentleman's attention and, if he agrees with us, I would draw his further attention to several other amendments that would be a necessary consequence of the alteration. For instance, paragraph 5, which also deals with the second pilot, will need alteration, and I dare say there are other paragraphs needing amendment.
May I turn to paragraph 10 (B)? This has already been mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey), but I would go a step further. This paragraphs deals with the instrument rating laid down for a pilot of a foreign-flown aircraft. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield contended that it was much too vague; it just talks about an instrument rating, without saying what sort. It does not, as it should, state that such an instrument rating should be at least as good as a rating held by a British pilot. I would say that the second pilot of a foreign-flown aircraft should also have the same instrument rating as is necessary for the first pilot of a British aircraft. The same argument applies—it

may be necessary for the second pilot to take over from the captain in very bad weather conditions. That is another point that should contribute towards the annulment of this Order.
My last point concerns Paragraph 8 (B), which says that no longer should it be the responsibility of a pilot to decide whether he should continue a flight or not if he suffers from a radio defect. We have seen in recent years, as I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree, a deplorable tendency to take more and more responsibility away from the captain of the aircraft. In the final analysis it must be the captain, who is responsible for the safety of his passengers, who decides whether to take certain action in circumstances of this kind. To say that he must land, or that he must not take off—wherever he happens to be—if there is a slight defect in the radio—is taking away almost the last vestige of intelligent decision and responsibility from the pilot. One cannot always say that it is dangerous to continue a flight with a defective radio.
Whether it is dangerous or not depends on many things. It depensd first on the weather: if the weather is good and visibility fine, it may be perfectly safe to continue. It depends on the cargo: if you were carrying passengers you would probably take a different decision than if you were carrying freight. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or ground nuts."] Yes, or Gambian eggs. There is also the question of urgency: it is sometimes more important to continue than it is on other occasions. It may be that one is hurrying a stretcher case to hospital in an air ambulance. Is that to be subject to delay because of this regulation? These things must be left to the intelligence and sense of responsibility of the pilot, who has been carefully trained, at great expense, and has had great experience in flying, and who does not want to break his own neck any more than those of his passengers. There will be far-reaching consequences unless we stop this drift away from the responsibility of the pilot.
Paragraph 4 of the First Schedule refers to Rule 13 of the principal Order, which I should like to read to the House, for without being clear on that it is almost impossible to understand this Order. If the House will forgive me while I find it——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker(Colonel Sir Charles Mac Andrew): I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman need not trouble as he would be out of order if he read anything that is not in this Order.

Mr. Ward: Very well, Sir. That suits me. I do not want to read it. My only thought was to make it easier for hon. Members to understand, but of course I bow to your Ruling, and I will try to explain as I go along. The paragraph adds the following proviso to Rule 13:
Provided that, within the United Kingdom, the requirement in this paragraph that an overtaking aircraft shall keep out of the way of the other aircraft by altering its course to the right …
That is the rule, that all aircraft shall take avoding action to the right when overtaking. To continue the proviso:
… shall not apply to a glider overtaking another glider if the person in command of the overtaking glider is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances, hazard would be caused by altering his course to the right.
To a layman that may appear to be very clear and sensible, but anyone who has done a lot of flying would think more about it. If we are to make exceptions of this sort, we shall get into terrible difficulties. The first thought that occurs to one is that, if a glider is allowed to turn the other way if the pilot thinks that there might be a hazard in turning to the right, what happens if the pilot of a powered aircraft thinks that there is going to be a hazard in turning to the right? Is he not allowed to turn to the left to avoid that hazard? Must he turn to the right because the rule says so? That is another example of the taking away of the last vestige of the use of intelligence and responsibility by the pilot. As an ex-pilot of some experience, I can say that, whatever the rule may state, if in turning to the right in overtaking another aircraft I should collide with a third, I should certainly turn to the left.
That is all that the Order says, that if one is flying a glider and it is dangerous to turn to the right, one may turn to the left. I submit that that is quite unnecessary. In any case, how many gliders will be flying around together like that? This instrument does not apply to military matters. It is not a sort of Arnhem "landing regulation" in order to avoid a collision between three or four gliders coming in to land, having been released from tugs on a military operation. Pre-

sumably this relates purely to civilian gliders. How many are there? There are a few sail-planes on the downs towed off by motorcars or winches with one or, at most, two in the air at one time. Is it really necessary to make this special regulation and clutter up the rules which already exist just to cover the very remote possibility that the pilot of a glider, when overtaking another, may be forced to turn to the left instead of to the right?
It is absurd, and it brings ridicule upon this sort of amending Instrument. It makes it necessary for those of us who have the interests of civil aviation and such matters very much at heart, as the hon. Gentleman knows, to examine these Orders very carefully, and to speak for the people who have to carry them out and interpret them, and find out what the mystery is in, say, the fourth paragraph. We speak for friends of ours with whom we may have flown in the past. We want to ensure that they are provided with the maximum degree of safety in the air for themselves and their passengers, but at the same time we also want to preserve their freedoms and liberties, their freedom of action and their freedom of responsibility, and, above all, not to clutter them up with unnecessary regulations which will make their lives unbearable.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As there is some evidence that hon. Members in some part of the House are absent, in need of rest or refreshment—I cannot imagine what else would keep them from doing their duty—would I be in order in moving that the Sitting of the House be suspended for one hour, so that they may restore themselves?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I could not accept that Motion.

11.21p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Beswick): I readily join with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member who have just spoken in saying how interested we all are in the Navigation Order, and the consequent amending Order. From the speeches we have just heard, it is obvious how close an interest they take in this question, and it is clear to me, as a result of their speeches, that they understand clearly the aims and objects of the amending Order.
I would just say to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Ward), who had a little difficulty in finding his way around these Orders, that an Amendment in 1951 will deal with the Order as amended in the previous year. The paragraph which he could not find is there, he will find, if he turns to the amended Order. I do hope that the high standard of navigation which the hon. Gentleman showed in the air, will be maintained when he is looking through these different Orders.

Mr. P. Roberts: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I have the amended Order to which he refers. I think that the hon. Gentleman's point would be a good one if, in the first paragraph, it referred to "the principal Order as amended." It does not do that. It refers to the principal Order. It says, admittedly, that the principal Order has been amended by various other Instruments. But the difficulty which I suggest an aviator may have is that he may only read the principal Order. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to make an Amendment by using the words "as amended herein," it will meet the point.

Mr. Beswick: Aviators can follow this and look at the principal Order. It is true that they do read these Orders before they take to the air.
This Order relates, as hon. Members opposite will know, to a number of matters, including aircraft performance, instruction, rules for flying and air traffic control. Provision is also made for the renewal of air-worthiness certificates for the smaller types of private aircraft. The general purpose of this amendment is to increase safety in the air. I am quite sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not wish to do anything to decrease safety in the air. Hon. Members complain, as one would expect, that there is quite a lot of paper work in this matter of flying round the sky, but the fact is that aviation is developing. We now have a regular helicopter service. Therefore, we have to amend the Air Navigation Order to provide for such services. We also have, as hon. Gentlemen will know, a system of airways which requires amendment of the original Order. In this amending Order we have made provision for this new arrangement in our skies.
The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey)

asked about the panel of persons referred to in Rule 1 (6), and asked whether the individuals referred to were going to circumvent the panel. It is a matter of panels or individuals, as the hon. Gentleman will know. In some parts of the world it is difficult to have a panel on the spot, and there will be an individual qualified or permitted to do the work done in other parts of the world by panels.

Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Gentleman has not made it at all clear. Is he suggesting that these individuals should be civil servants of his own Ministry or will they be pilots selected from one of the Corporations or charter companies? I think this is important. If it is going to be an individual abroad, is he going to be kept in flying practice consistently? I should like to have more detail.

Mr. Beswick: The hon. and gallant Gentleman well knows that this matter has been discussed in great detail. The individual so employed will be an individual who is in flying practice and able to carry out the trust hitherto given to the panel.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked whether the instrument rating required of foreign operators would be up to the standard required of British pilots. The answer is in the affirmative. We shall require of foreign operators coming into these airspaces the same standard we require from British pilots. The hon. and gallant Gentleman followed up that question by asking why this standard should not be applied equally to the second pilot. On a smaller aircraft the requirement for second pilot is only for a man as look-out and it is not necessary for the look-out to hold an instrument rating. Above a certain weight, where the second pilot has greater responsibilities, it is necessary for him to hold the appropriate instrument rating.

Mr. Ward: That may be so, but that distinction does not appear in the Order, nor does the distinction between real flying and training appear.

Mr. Beswick: The distinction appears in the weight of the aircraft, and hon. Gentlemen who follow these matters know


that below a certain weight the requirements for second pilot is only for look-out. I hope I have been able to convince both hon. Gentlemen that this Order is necessary and is not confusing. I shall be very interested to see whether hon. Members do wish to annul this Order.

Air Commodore Harvey: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, I should like to ask him what happens in the case of radio. He has not referred to that point at all. I hope he is not skating over the most important points, otherwise I am more convinced than ever that this Order should be annulled. Can we have elucidation of all the points raised; they are relevant.

Mr. Perkins: How can the hon. Gentleman enforce this? What power has he over a foreign flyer coming into this country? Can he insist on a standard? For instance, has he any power over a Brazilian pilot in this country?

Mr. Beswick: I have no powers at all if this Order is annulled.

Mr. P. Roberts: When a question is put to a Minister which he refuses to answer, is he in order in speaking again to give a further reply? I think we must have an answer to this point.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): By leave of the House.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. John Grimston: It is nonsense for the Minister to say this Order is easily understandable by the ordinary layman. I speak as a pilot. I would draw his attention to paragraph 1 (8). I ask him what these words mean:
An aircraft…shall be equipped with radio apparatus"—
that is quite clear—
when engaged in any flight in the circumstances of which it is required to be so equipped in accordance with such requirements as may be prescribed.
What on earth does that mean? It really is nonsense for the Minister to say that this Order is crystal-clear to all pilots and people who follow these things; because, as I think he very well knows, I follow these things extremely closely. I think I am the ony Member of this House actually qualified at this moment to fly

in accordance with instrument flight rules, and if I cannot understand it I would not mind betting a considerable sum that the Minister himself cannot understand what he is requiring shall be understood by the members of a very hard-working fraternity who fly in the air for their living.
There are a great many points in this Order with which I am certain that hon. Members on this side of the House are in agreement. I do not know the Rules of this House very well, but I believe that the only way in which we can get elucidation of the points on which we are not clear is by putting down a Prayer of this kind; and unless we can obtain a more satisfactory answer from the hon. Gentleman than we have already received, that would seem to me to be justification for talking to him all night to try to get a little sense.
In paragraph 3 of Article 13, the Minister takes power to himself to delegate the power of giving of certificates of airworthiness, and so on, to firms of whom he may approve. I believe this to be an entirely new idea, and I should like to know what kind of firms he proposes to approve. Will he require the same high standard from them as from every other firm? The matter of the second pilot has been dealt with, but I would refer to one point. If we are to have aeroplanes flying in the extremely busy conditions we now have in the area of London—and London has the most difficult traffic conditions of any country in the world and some of the most fickle weather—it is vital that the standards of pilotage shall be of the very highest. Now, having introduced this tightened standard, why should we suddenly find ourselves able to relax it in the matter of the second pilot of a large aircraft?
The Minister has said that the second pilot of a large aircraft will have the instrument rating qualification. If he can show me where that appears in the Order, I shall be delighted; but so far as I can see, both in the principal Order and the Order we are now debating, there is no such qualification. If there is, I shall be very glad to see it. In sub-paragraph (d)of paragraph (2) of Article 23, the Minister is again delegating power to furnish certificates to a body which he approves—in this case an instructor's rating. That is a power which may be of


great value in the safety of aeroplanes flying into and out of this country, and we ought to know what kind of qualification he will require of these people.
In sub-paragraph (d)of paragraph (3) of Article 24 he is making exceptions in the length of time which records should be preserved. Hitherto, log books of all kinds, relating to engines, propellors, radio, pilots and everybody concerned, had to be kept for two years. Now the telecommunications log book is to be kept only for six months. That is a log book which above all others I should have thought should be kept for a long period, because, as the hon. Gentleman will know, intercepted messages often appear in the telecommunications log book. Messages are written down which may not affect the particular aircraft in question but some other aircraft which might be involved in a subsequent accident inquiry, or something of that sort, and this evidence would then be vital. Therefore, why is it that the Minister proposes in this one case—the most important of all—to allow the thing to be destroyed so quickly?
Paragraph (2) of Article 31 is a long and involved paragraph, and I do not propose to detain the House by reading from it, but here again, the Minister has no idea of what it means. Does he require a radio apparatus to be put into an aircraft and then make, it necessary to get the approval of the Minister—after having put it in? Why do that? In the First Schedule, under Rule 6A, we have a very big query. My standard of navigation has fallen down on this because there are at least a hundred pages to wade through, and if we are to get through in a short time, one cannot say much.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Member, I think, is dealing with something not before the House. I have tried to find from where he is quoting, but he is apparently dealing with something which is not before us.

Mr. Grimston: I am sorry, but I am referring to Rule 6A on page 3 of Statutory Instrument No. 319, of 1951. In the First Schedule, it states,
After Rule 6 there shall be inserted the following Rule:"——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, but some of the others were not in the Order before the House.

Air Commodore Harvey: On a point of order. This Order deals with the Air Navigation Order, 1949, and that is amended by Order No. 349. What my hon. Friend says is relevant to Order No. 319.

Mr. Grimston: It is a most complex matter, and I would ask the House to appreciate that there are a hundred odd pages, and amendments, and every amendment seems to go through a number of pages in the original Order.
At the end of paragraph (2) of Rule 8, we have certain words to be added, which have the effect of giving instructions to a pilot who on his route into, or out of, this country might wish to change his flight plan. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to study that particular paragraph. At the moment, if one changes from visual flying to instrument flying in bad weather, one can do it immediately, but now one has to get permission to change from instrument flying to visual. There may be a perfectly sensible answer to it, but it has been my recent experience that frequencies are so cluttered up, especially around the London area, that one has to wait a considerable time before getting permission to alter from instrument flight rules to visual rules.
One may have flown through a heavy cloud, or have ice on the wings, and one might want to climb up into clear air. That may be something approaching an emergency. But under present rules even when a pilot is flying through perfectly, clear conditions without any risk whatsoever, he has to maintain his course sometimes even into another cloud, which he may think will give him additional icing, all because of the Minister's regulations, which say that he cannot alter his course, height or direction without the permission of the ground. I suggest that it should be left to the discretion of the pilot, when flying through clear air to change from an instrument flight plan to a visual flight plan at his own discretion. This is a highly technical point, but I hope it will be taken notice of by the Minister.
There are also certain conditions for simulated instrument flights, where now there must be a second pilot with dual


control, when a device known as two-stage amber is fitted to the aircraft. I think there might be some relaxation, with absolute safety, in that particular regulation. The Minister will probably understand that there is real safety in allowing practice approaches in good flying conditions on every possible occasion; so long as the traffic control gives permission for a pilot to make such approaches, he ought to be able to do so if there is a competent observer to see that there is no risk of a collision or anything of that kind. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will look at that point carefully.
There is another point which arises out of the most serious accident which has ever taken place in civil aviation when 80 people were killed. It is now made obligatory on operators of aircraft to carry with them the performance chart of their aeroplanes. This again reinforces what hon. Members in this House have said several times. It is all very well to make this condition, but quite a different matter to see that it is enforced. There has been a regulation for some time back, which lays down that details should be made of flight performance of every type of aircraft, but the Minister has not enforced it. Can we be assured that this particular regulation shall not only be made but it shall be carried out?

Mr. Beswick: I am afraid that I cannot give that assurance if hon. Gentlemen opposite persist in annulling this Order.

Mr. Grimston: But there is no other way by which these matters can be raised and discussed in this House unless we move such a Prayer as this. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not accusing me of having raised frivolous points, because I have tried to stick to quite serious and practical points, of which I believe the hon. Gentleman himself has very little idea. It may be that I kept him too late on the Adjournment the other night, but I paired with him the following day and gave him an evening at home.
There is also in these regulations one reducing the cost of certificate of airworthiness for light aircraft. This is a belated gesture to the small private operator, but we welcome it, as we are keen to see the private owner given all encouragement possible. This small con-

cession we shall be delighted to see go through, but I hope that we may also have satisfactory answers to some at least of these highly technical points.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: I rise only for a very few moments merely to express the hope that on this occasion, on this complicated Order, the Parliamentary Secretary will be good enough to answer some of the points raised by my hon. Friends who have, I think, considerable practical and personal experience of flying in its different forms. The questions they have put have been very well stated and I know that the hon. Gentleman is very well qualified to reply to them, for he also has considerable experience of a personal kind, apart from the knowledge he has in his present office. I think he owes it to the House, to his duties and to my hon. Friends, at some point before the danger-signal which I see beginning to operate goes up, to make a reply to the points which have been raised by my hon. Friends. If he would be good enough to say that was his intention, I should certainly not wish to delay the House by standing between him and the possibility of a reply to the House on these points.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. Perkins: It is getting very late and the last thing I want to do is to detain the House, but I want to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on showing great courage in coming here and facing all his critics. I cannot help feeling that he has set a very fine example. What he has said might usefully be brought to the attention of the Secretary of State for Air who this evening refused to face a challenge brought by me to reduce his salary by £1,000 on the Report stage of the Air Estimates. That was carefully arranged, but when the time arrived at 9.30 there was no chance of a discussion and therefore the challenge could not be accepted.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Mr. R. J. Taylor rose in his place, and claimed to move,"That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

Air Commodore Harvey: On a point of order——

Mr. Speaker: There can be no points of order when I am putting the Question.

Air Commodore Harvey: (seated and covered:)Is it in order for the Motion for the Closure to be put when the Minister has failed to answer practically all the questions put to him?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is my judgment. I think the debate has gone on some time, and it is getting fairly late and in my judgment it is time it closed.

Mr. Drayson: (seated and covered):This is a very complicated Order; there are at least 17 paragraphs to the First Schedule, but we have had no explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary on any of these points. There are a number of hon. and gallant Members with considerable experience of air matters who want to take part in this debate and I would submit that there is a very good case——

Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, no. I am sorry, but that is the answer.

Mr. P. Roberts: (seated and covered:)I wish to ask your advice, Mr. Speaker. Under the Order now being put, a question has been put to the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to Proviso E, to which no reply has been given. Is there any way in which, as a back bencher, I can put this question again to the Parliamentary Secretary in order to get a reply?

Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry. There is not. There is no opportunity.

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. WILKINS andMr. KENNETH ROBINSON were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Members being willing to act as Tellers for the Noes,Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Question put accordingly.

Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to collect the voices, and declared that the Ayes had it.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I understood you to say, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the annulment, that "The Ayes have it."

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I beg your pardon. The Noes have it.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You put it clearly that the Ayes had it.

Mr. Speaker: It is quite obvious that I made a mistake. If there is any doubt about it, I declare that the Noes have it.

Mr. R. A. Butler: With all respect, it was clearly stated that the Ayes had it. There is no doubt that the Ayes had it, and therefore the Prayer has been successful. We quite understand the position you have been placed in, Sir, but there is no doubt about what we heard, and it was stated that the Ayes had it. That was accepted by the House.

Mr. Speaker: That is a quite impossible proposition. After all, one knows at this time of day, although it has not yet got to the morning——

Hon. Members: It is early yet.

Mr. Drayson: Mr. Drayson rose——

Mr. Speaker: How dare the hon. Gentleman stand when I am on my feet. I am declaring that the Noes have it. I made a mistake because I forgot exactly how the Question had been put. It was my mistake. Quite obviously the Noes had it.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I think the position is crystal clear. The view is strongly held on this side that the Ayes had it. That view is confirmed by the Leader of the House, who got the same impression. We have no doubt that the Leader of the House has exactly the same impression as we have. He put the case to you, and you have confirmed it. I do not know what the precedents are, but I ask with all respect whether there is any precedent for going back on the statement that the Ayes had it.

Mr. Speaker: I think this is rather silly really. It is perfectly obvious that I made a mistake when giving the way the vote was declared. I had given the closure which was not challenged, and it is obvious that I meant to say on the other question that the Noes had it, but I made a mistake. Very well, and so I say, quite frankly, it is my Ruling that the Noes had it and not the Ayes.

Sir Ian Fraser: On that same point of order. With all respect, there were, in fact, more Ayes in the House than Noes. When you col-


lected the voices, you collected a larger shout for Aye than you did for No. Hon. Members opposite were not here, and you will recall they have not been here for the last hour and a half. It is not surprising, therefore, that when you collected the voices, you collected more Ayes than Noes.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must remember that I cannot be here the whole time. Physical nature makes that quite impossible, and therefore I have to come back occasionally. But I hear what is taking place. If hon. Members think that I have got to be here the whole time, very well, alter the Rules of the House. I quite understand. I do not want to be indiscreet in what I say, but we understand from the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, I do not mind saying that—and it has not been repudiated in any way. I am quite prepared to give all these Prayers a fair run, but not more.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I must, with all respect, state emphatically that you have made a statement about a speech made by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby). This has been raised in this House as a possible question of Privilege, and you have ruled there is no question of Privilege involved. I must state that in your position—a proud position—to state that the speech of the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire has any relevance to the present situation is, as it would appear to us, an undesirable thing, because it would appear to associate you on one side of the House and not on the other.
With absolute respect, we are prepared to accept, after making a protest, the fact that you made a mistake in collecting voices, which was due to the fact that the Chamber was almost entirely filled by those who said "Aye," and those who said "No" were not present. With all humanity and respect, we are prepared to accept that you made a mistake in collecting these voices and that, I think —[Interruption.]I do not know why hon. Members laugh, because there is no doubt, according to the procedure of the House, that the Ayes had it. If hon. Members do not want to accept what is a reasonable and human gesture on the part of the Opposition, they need not

accept it, and it will be up to us to consider what action we take in the future.
I was saying, with all respect, Mr. Speaker, that we accept, in the terms in which you have expressed your statement, that you made a mistake, and that, therefore the position can be put in the hands of the Leader of the House. We accept the fact that you meant to say, "The Noes have it." But when we come to this matter of bringing a speech by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I do not know, nor have I any association with him. But when we have this matter of the speech brought into our discussions at this hour of the night, and you Mr. Speaker, state that no disavowal has been made of this speech by any hon. Member or right hon. Member on this side, you are not preserving an independent attitude. I say, with the deepest possible respect, and having already accepted your view that a mistake was made on the other matter, that I think the best thing we can do at this late hour is for you to say that no further reference to the hon. Member will be made this evening.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that is a point of order. I do not think there is anything I can say about it. I said what I said. All these things were at the back of one's mind. The right hon. Gentleman agrees that when I said "The Ayes have it" I should have said "The Noes have it." For the rest—the speech of the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire—one is bound to consider things. One knows he is an ex-Minister, and I presume one must bear that in the back of one's mind. I was prepared to be perfectly fair, but in view of what I heard from an ex-Minister, I will not be hard on giving the closure; but I will bear that always in my mind.

Mr. Ede: May I draw your attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that there is no Question before the House, and I suggest that we move to the next business on the Order Paper?

Mr. John Foster: Further to that point of order. Is it not a tradition in the House that mistakes are not allowed? You will remember. Mr. Speaker, when through a point of order being raised after you had put the Greece Double Taxation Order, through a mistake on our side we were not able to speak on that Order. It was a mistake,


but the Rules of the House are inexorable. We lost our chance to speak on it, and like good losers we did not speak. It is, in my submission, a rule and a tradition of the House that if a mistake is made the side that has made the mistake loses with a good conscience.
May I bring this (further matter to your consideration? The mistake was not yours; it was induced by the fact that, with the exception of a very small number, hon. Members on the other side had been creating a disturbance—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—in the Smoking Room, and came into this House and shouted "Aye", and that is why the fault is in no sense yours. The Ayes did have it, because more shouted "Aye" than "No", and you were quite right in saying that the Ayes had it.

Mr. Speaker: The House is always generous when anybody makes a mistake, I agree. I made a mistake, and gave a wrong decision. As to the former mistake, the voices had been collected and the hon. Member raised a point of order after I had collected the voices. As for the rest of the hon. and learned Member's contention, I do not think that is a point of order, and I do not propose to proceed with it.

Mr. Drayson: On a point of order. You referred, Mr. Speaker, to the speech made recently by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby). You may not have been informed, but hon. Members on this side of the House wished to raise earlier today the question of Privilege arising out of a report in the "Daily Herald" which said that the Labour Party——

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It cannot be raised now. I do not know what the hon. Member is talking about. That is not a point of order. A point of order concerns procedure.

Air Commodore Harvey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I, as the mover of the Motion, point out with great respect that just now you referred us to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby)? May I, with great respect, submit that, while the House was entirely devoid of hon. Members opposite, and Mr. Deputy-Speaker was in the Chair, the Parliamentary Secretary, who replied to the debate, remarked that all the points

made by the mover and seconder and in the subsequent speeches were relevant, and congratulated this side of the House on the points brought forward? I submit that it is a little unfair to hon. Members who have been to a lot of trouble over this debate to have an inference made in regard to that statement because it is not popular on the other side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman objects, let him put down a Motion of Censure on the Speaker. That is the only answer to that. Mr. Walker-Smith.

Orders of the Day — CARPETS (MAXIMUM PRICES)

12.8 a.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I beg to move:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 26th February, 1951, entitled the Carpets (Maximum Prices) (Amendment No. 4) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 312), a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th February, be annulled.
It is very gratifying to see such a fine assembly of hon. Members on the benches opposite. Hitherto in the course of this evening and the last few nights when the House has debated business of such importance to the nation, hon. Members opposite have not been conspicuous by their devotion to duty. I have been reminded of nothing so much as that famous cricket match in "Pickwick Papers" between Dingley Dell and All Muggleton, when the score of the other side was "as blank as their faces." That seems to me perfectly to describe the attitude of hon. Members opposite to their Parliamentary duties at present. Their score is very low indeed.
I now come to the demerits and dubieties of the Order. This is the fourth amending Order to be made in respect of the price of carpets within the short space of nine months. Taking into account the original Order, which is varied by these amending orders, there have been no fewer than five orders in the course of 13 months. It started with the Carpets (Maximum Prices) Order, 1950, which fixed the prices at 1st February, 1950. That was followed very quickly by the first amending order fixing a new scale of prices at 14th June, 1950. Almost immediately afterwards came the No. 2 (Amendment) Order fixing further


prices at 26th June. Then in October last there came the No. 3 (Amendment) Order fixing further prices at 30th October.
That brings us to the present Order, which is, therefore, the fifth order on this subject in only just over a year. For the benefit of the uninitiated, that is what is called a planned economy. It is a rapid advance on a broad front in the price of carpets. I want to confine my examples to one type, to rugs and mats, these being smaller than ordinary fitted carpets and therefore less outside the range of the average citizen's purse in the present inflationary era of the Socialist Government. For the benefit of the House and particularly for the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman I have made a comparison of certain prices respectively at the date when prices were fixed by the original Order in February, 1950, at October last year when they were fixed by the last amending Order, and at the present time as fixed by the Order we are discussing. The prices are expressed per square foot and are exclusive of Purchase Tax. That is a significant point to which I shall return.
These figures are far from exhaustive, but they serve as illustrations of the staggering effects of rising prices as the result of these various amending orders. My comparisons relate to Axminster carpets, which are described by the working party of the industry as medium quality carpets. There are four grades of these carpets. Axminster No. 0 has gone from 5s. per square foot on 1st February, 1950, to 6s. 7d. on 30th October and up to 7s. 7d. by the Order which is before us. Axminster No. 1—I think I should repeat the first figure because some hon. Gentlemen have not heard it.
The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has accused me of tedius repetition. I would suggest a simple test. If he is able to rehearse to us the figures I have just given, I would be guilty of tedious repetition if I were to repeat them. I will give way instantly, if he will accept that challenge. I hope the hon. Member's constituents will have regard to the degree of diligence and attention he gives to this vital matter affecting the social comfort and amenity of his constituents. It is clear beyond peradventure that I am not only entitled but it is my duty to repeat

the figures I have given to the House for the benefit of the hon. Member and his colleagues who have not fully comprehended them.
I took Axminster carpets of medium quality. The first variety has gone from 5s. in February, 1950, to 6s. 7d. in October, 1950, and now up to 7s. 7d. The next quality of Axminster carpet, the No. 1, has gone from 3s. 9d. in February, 1950, to 4s. 11d. in October, 1950, and on to 5s. 7d. in this Order. The next quality, the No. 2, has gone from 3s. 2d. per square foot on 1st February, 1950. to 4s. 2d. on 30th October, 1950, and to 4s. 7d. in this Order. Finally, the cheapest quality of Axminster carpet goes from 2s. 7d. on 1st February, 1950, to 3s. 4d. on 30th October, 1950, and now goes right up to 4s. 3d. in this Order. That, as hon. Members will observe, is an average rise of rather more than less than 50 per cent. in that short period.
The most peculiar thing, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain if he is not too busy——

Mr. Dryden Brook: Will the hon. Member tell the House how much the price of raw wool has risen?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Of course.that is material, and I am coming to that if the hon. Member will contain himself. He has not been in the House so long this evening that he cannot sit patiently for a minute or two. Not only has there been this very substantial rise in the price, but the rise has been heaviest in the cheapest article. That is a very odd thing to get from a Socialist Minister, that the cheapest Axminster carpet seems to have increased more in price than the more expensive carpets. It has increased by no less than 11d. since the 30th October, whereas the No. 2 carpet has increased by the much smaller amount of 5d. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to address himself to why that should be so.
I always like to be fair on these occasions, and there is one apparent gleam of comfort to be found in the study of this Order. That is in regard to hair pile rugs and mats. There I find that the price is actually lower. I hasten to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on this. Encouraged by that discovery I went on to look, hoping I would find the same thing in regard to hair cord


rugs and mats, but for some inexplicable reason, the reverse applies and the Order raises the price of these rugs and mats. Then to try and reconcile these figures, and to see if I could find further enlightenment, I had a look at the effect of the Order upon hair pile seamless squares and broad loom. One would expect that if it were possible to reduce the price of hair pile rugs and mats, it would equally be possible to reduce the price of hair pile seamless squares and broad loom. But greatly to my astonishment and regret, that in fact is not the case and the price there is raised from 30s. 7d. on 30th October, 1950. to 32s. 3d. by the present Order.
The next aspect of this rather puzzling Order to which I want to refer hon. Members is the introduction of three new types by this Order. Those types, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, but as some of his colleagues who have not studied the Order may not know, are respectively W0A, W1A and C1A. The C1A means chenille Axminster No. 1A, and study of the Order shows that there are already five types of chenille Axminster listed in the Order. By an unhappy coincidence, the maximum retail prices of each and every one is raised. Why is there this new type? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the introduction of the new types is in reality intended to cloak the rise in prices? If not, what is the reason for bringing them in? Or is it that they have been introduced as a kind of consolation prize for having raised the prices of the five existing types?
The W0A is another new type introduced by the Order; and this I find with considerable regret, as coming from a Socialist Government, is the most expensive of all the types, being 12s. 2d. a square foot for rugs and mats. It seems to be the policy of the right hon. Gentleman that when prices are rising all round he adds a new category at the topmost price of all, which might be said to be a policy pour encourager les autres.[An HON. MEMBER: "Will the hon. Member translate?"] If the hon. Member asks for a translation, I would suggest that for hon. Members opposite the policy is one of"excelsior,"at any rate, where prices are concerned.
I now come to the point I touched upon a little earlier, and to which I said I would return, and that is the question

of Purchase Tax, because this is really the most important part of this important Order. It will be quite obvious that the right hon. Gentleman when he replies is going to say, in justification or extenuation, that all this is due to the rise in the prices of raw materials.

Mr. Speaker: Did I hear the hon. Member mention Purchase Tax? If he did, that has nothing to do with this Order. Purchase Tax is not mentioned in the Order.

Mr. Walker-Smith: With respect, Mr. Speaker, it is in the Order, because one of the columns in this Order shows that the retailers' over-riding maximum price is calculated exclusive of Purchase Tax.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot discuss Purchase Tax.

Mr. Walker-Smith: With great respect, what we may discuss in a price control regulation is the price as it will affect the consumer. The price as it affects the consumer is based on two elements, the retail price and the Purchase Tax. It is, with respect, quite impossible to discuss an order such as this without referring to the Purchase Tax; because it is one of the great hardships of price raising in this way that not only does it add to the advertised price to the consumer in the Order but it increases the Purchase Tax by one-third of the increased price.

Mr. Speaker: No. I believe one must discuss the Order without reference to Purchase Tax. That is what the Order says, exclusive of Purchase Tax, and therefore a reference to Purchase Tax is out of order in discussing this Order.

Mr. Walker-Smith: With great respect I submit that I should be in order, in reciting to the House what these figures are to be when they are translated into what the consumer has to pay—an hon. Member who has momentarily usurped your function, Mr. Speaker, shakes his head——

Mr. Speaker: I think that if the hon. Member says what the consumer has to pay, including Purchase Tax, that would be bringing in Purchase Tax and this Order excludes Purchase Tax. Therefor that is out of order.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I would put it this way, with great respect, because I know


that you are anxious to give a Ruling which accords with the proper discussion of this Order by hon. Members of this House in the fulfilment of our responsibilities to our constituents. There is only one aspect of this Order which really affects the electors who send hon. Members to this House, and that is the amount which they have to pay in order to secure these articles.

Mr. Speaker: That may be a matter for the Finance Bill, but it is not relevant to this Order.

Squadron Leader Burden: With respect, Mr. Speaker, this Order does determine what amount of Purchase Tax they have to pay.

Mr. Speaker: It says "exclusive of Purchase Tax."

Mr. I. J. Pitman: This Order is called the Carpets (Maximum Prices) Order, and I think that you will find, Sir, that in other regulations the price to be charged by retailers must include Purchase Tax; and maximum Purchase Tax, taken in conjunction with column 4, admittedly does carry the words "exclusive of Purchase Tax." But, inherent in the context of that and this Order, is the idea that the maximum price of those figures in column 4 applies the Purchase Tax although, for convenience, it is put in terms to which Purchase Tax can be added.

Mr. Speaker: No, I am afraid I cannot accept that.

Mr. John Foster: "Exclusive of Purchase Tax" is an exception. Is it not in order, Mr. Speaker, to discuss an exception? The law may say such-and-such a thing may not apply, but surely it is in order to discuss something which is excepted. "Exclusive of Purchase Tax" is in the drafting of the Order, and it may be that the Section of a Statute states, for example, that all buildings shall have fire escapes, except that this shall not apply to buildings less than 55 feet high. Surely it is not right to say the legislation excludes houses of less than 55 feet in height from any discussion?

Mr. Speaker: The rule is that we can discuss what is in an Order, and anything outside the Order must not be discussed.

Mr. Foster: The Purchase Tax is part of the drafting.

Mr. Woodburn: Is it not the case that the Purchase Tax has the authority of the Finance Act? Consequently, this Order cannot affect Purchase Tax on the goods with which it is concerned.

Mr. Speaker: That is exactly the argument which I made at the beginning.

Mr. Drayson: Surely what we are discussing is what is the relative rate of Purchase Tax applying to these carpets at the present time. If any future Finance Bill alters that rate of tax, it is a different question. But, are we not concerned with the rate at the present time?

Mr. Speaker: I really do not think that these are points of order—they may be points of disorder.

Mr. Walker-Smith: In order that the area of the scope of the debate may be clearly defined, might I ask, Mr. Speaker, if I shall be out of order if I make any representations as to a change in the Purchase Tax on any one item? That, I think, is clearly right, and I am not going to trespass on the time of the House or risk getting out of order. But, shall I be in order if I proceed to draw attention to the fact that the Order says the figures which I quote are exclusive of Purchase Tax; and if I go on to say, in order that the citizen may know what he pays, that he is charged 33⅓ per cent., and that that amount will be calculated on a much larger sum by reason of this Order? In other words, that the citizen will pay more by reason of this Order than under the Order which it is amending?

Mr. Poole: On a point of order. The hon. Member has just said he proposes to relate the figures in this Order to the Order which it amends. I understand that it is not in order to discuss the Order which this Order amends. It is clearly laid down in Erskine May.

Mr. Speaker: I want to be quite fair about this. The hon. Member suggests that these prices would be increased by 33⅓ per cent. in view of the Purchase Tax. That is all right, but we cannot go right down the Schedule and say that this will be increased by 6s. 6d. and that by 7s. 6d. That is really going outside


the question. It may be generally stated that the Purchase Tax will increase the price by 33⅓ per cent., but that is as far as one ought to go.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am much obliged. The position is quite clear. It is not mathematically very difficult because I can do it myself. Where the retail maximum controlled price, which is given in column 4, is increased it involves also an increase in the Purchase Tax, because the same percentage of 33⅓ per cent. is also levied on the larger amount. The consequence of that is that, whereas, no doubt, there will not be any higher profit to the wholesaler for the manufactured goods, because, as an hon. Member opposite was good enough to point out, that is accounted for by the rise in the price of the raw materials, there will, of course, be a higher profit to the Treasury because of the increased Purchase Tax.
Why, because there is an increase in the cost of raw materials, should there be an increase in profit to the Treasury? They have nothing to do except rake in the tax. They are not put to any further difficulty or trouble by reason of the increased price of the raw materials. Why then should the unfortunate citizen be penalised twice? That is really the root of this whole matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is now discussing the effects of the Purchase Tax and that is out of order.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am sorry if I transgressed. I was seeking to confine myself to the effects of the Order, and I shall certainly be careful not at this time and in this context to suggest any remedy in regard to that. The suggestion and the remedy I appreciate are out of order. Many of my hon. Friends have made a close study of this matter, and they will seek to spread enlightenment among hon. Members opposite, where it is much needed. Let me, therefore, summarise the effect of this as it will be both for the industry and for the citizen. For the industry it will undoubtedly mean more difficulties and loss. [Interruption.]I did not hear what was said from the other side of the House, but the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) generally is not loath to give his views to the House. If he wants to do so now I shall gladly give way to him.

Mr. Crossman: All I asked the hon. Gentleman was, why did the industry want this Order?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not think the hon. Member, even in one of his more imaginative flights, would suggest that the industry wanted an extra profit to be taken by the Government in respect of Purchase Tax.

Mr. Crossman: I asked, why did the industry want this Order?

Mr. Frederic Harris: Do you know they did?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The answer is, of course, that the industry is not averse to rises in the prices of finished articles. Industries very rarely are. What the hon. Member for Coventry, East, does not realise is that we on this side are interested in the rights of the consumer. The real trouble with the hon. Member and his hon. Friends is that they have been disseminating their very extravagant propaganda for so long that they are at last beginning to believe it themselves—so the position of the hon. Member when he has swallowed all his own propaganda will be unfortunate indeed.

Mr. Crossman: Mr. Crossman rose——

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member will be able to make his remarks in his own way in his own speech. I know that he is courteous enough to give way to me as often as I give way to him.

Mr. Crossman: Once!

Mr. Walker-Smith: Coming to his point with regard to industry, I have no special knowledge——

Mr. Mikardo: Of anything in the whole, wide world.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member suggests that I do not know very much about carpets. I do not suppose that he knows very much about carpets.

Mr. Mikardo: That is why I am not making a speech about them.

Mr. Walker-Smith: What he does know a great deal about is carpet-bagging, and in the last Parliament he had quite a lot of experience of being "on the carpet."

Mr. Mikardo: That is just a plain lie.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. John Hay: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the hon. Member for Reading, South has accused my hon. Friend of a deliberate lie.

Mr. Speaker: If that was said, it must be withdrawn at once. To accuse an hon. Member of telling a lie is quite out of order.

Mr. Mikardo: I withdraw the suggestion that it was a lie: it was merely a reverse of the truth.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it ought to be withdrawn properly. One cannot say a lie was something else. At this time of the morning it only leads to heat and lengthens our debates.

Mr. Mikardo: I assure you, Sir, with the greatest respect, that I have no desire to engender heat, or to give the Chair or the House the least embarrassment. If I had any such desire I should have objected to the term "carpet-bagging" which the hon. Gentleman used. I have as great respect as anyone for the rules of order, but truth comes before even the rules of order, and when the hon. Gentleman makes a statement of which he can have no evidence, and which has no foundation in truth or fact at all, I cannot withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must withdraw. There is no question about it. It is quite impossible for him to stick to his statement. I know that it is a most difficult situation for everyone, but in honesty to himself just as much as in respect to the Chair and the House of Commons, he should give a straightforward withdrawal.

Mr. Mikardo: I cannot refuse the request of the Chair, and I beg leave to withdraw.

Mr. Walker-Smith: We shall get on much faster if hon. Gentlemen will refrain from indulging in what I must call sedentary squawks. They need have no apprehensions that I shall be more backward in courtesy than the hon. Gentleman who has made a very frank withdrawal. I shall be equally frank with him, and if I am wrong I shall certainly express regret. I speak purely from recollection, but I had in mind that he was one of the

17 hon. Gentlemen who got into some trouble in the course of the last Parliament with the leaders of their party in regard to the telegram sent to Signor Nenni.

Mr. Speaker: Has that anything to do with the Order we are discussing? Why not stick to the Order and not go into these personalities?

Mr. Mikardo: Since the hon. Gentleman has so gallantly offered to withdraw, let me say that I did not sign the telegram. I was not included in the 17 Members, and could not possibly have been involved.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I certainly express regret to the hon. Gentleman for making that mistake and confusing him with one or other of his 17 hon. Friends. [Interruption.]I have already expressed regret, but if hon. Gentlemen opposite want to enter into any exchange of words then they had better rise and do so. They will find that I shall not be backward in taking them on.

Mr. George Jeger: We have had enough of you.

Mr. Speaker: Let us stick to the Prayer and drop anything else. I am a little tired of it.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Mr. Walker-Smith rose——

Mr. Driberg: Learn the rules of order.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The last professor from whom we would want to learn the rules of the House, or any other rules, would be the hon. Gentleman. Before the interventions of hon. Gentlemen opposite which unhappily prolonged my speech, I was in the process of summing up my final observations in regard to the consumer. He is, after all, all important, even more important than the industrialist. This final rapid rise in the price of these articles may mean for the citizen, simply going without. We have therefore reached this point—that in the sixth year of our Socialist Utopia we are in the position that these very ordinary articles are fast going beyond the purchasing power of the ordinary people of this country whom we are proud to represent.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman promised us that he would tell


us something about the rise in the price of wool. I am sure it is just an oversight.

12.45 a.m.

Squadron Leader Burden: I beg to second the Motion.
I was interested in the interjections of the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) who was in rather a new guise in standing up as the protector of industrialists, when he stated that the industrialists needed this rise.

Mr. Crossman: Mr. Crossman rose——

Squadron Leader Burden: I am sorry I cannot give way.

Mr. Crossman: Have you not got the time tonight?

Squadron Leader Burden: It does seem to be somewhat surprising from him and other hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Crossman: It is not true.

Squadron Leader Burden: It is a new guise for hon. Members, who seem to be much more concerned with filching firms from industrialists than supporting them. It is certain that in regard to this Order carpets serve only one purpose, and that is as floor covering. Hon. Members opposite, even the most loyal to their party, will agree that the people of this country are entitled to floor coverings, and at prices they can afford. The preference for carpets in competition with other forms of floor covering depends mainly on their ability to provide warmth, sound insulation, and decorative effect. Hon. Gentlemen cannot object to that. They must agree that it is a very worthy idea.
A working party was set up by the Government in 1946 to inquire into the carpet position, and at the request of that working party an inquiry into the present uses and future requirements of carpets was carried out by the social division of the Central Office of Information. The report of the working party was issued in May to June, 1946. This is relevant to this Order, because so much of the Order is based on it. Nine hundred and seventy-five informed housewives were interviewed by the C.O.I., and they were representatives of working-class homes. They were questioned about present uses and their requirements of room carpets and stair carpets. Measurements were taken of their rooms and their stairs in

order that an assessment could be arrived at in working out the future prospects of the carpet industry.
About 42 per cent. of the housewives said they would be willing to pay between £4 and £7 for a room carpet; about 28 per cent. were willing to pay between £8 and £11; only 17 per cent. and 13 per cent. respectively were willing to pay more than £11 or less than £4. For stair carpets similar inquiries were made. Approximately 80 per cent. of the housewives interviewed wished to buy a room carpet in the next 12 months, if the carpet was available at a suitable price. Of stair carpets, 76 per cent. of the housewives stated they needed them if they were available at a price they could afford. The investigation ascertained, among other points, the percentage of working class housewives who said they would or would not buy room and stair carpets at certain prices.
I want to carry hon. Members opposite with me. This is a serious matter. If they really meant what they said in 1945 and 1950, that they were endeavouring to bring about a high and rising standard of living, they will agree that people are entitled to carpets at prices they can afford, and the matter should concern them. This Committee assessed what was a working class household as one in which the wage of the primary wage earner was not more than £5 10s. a week. Of those 975 homes in only 35 per cent. were the carpets not worn; in other words, 65 per cent. of the carpets in that representative section of homes were either worn in holes or so thin as to need replacement. They all said they would buy the carpets if they could afford the prices and if the carpets were available. I remember that hon. Members opposite lost no time in 1945 in pointing out that their one idea was to bring about a high and rising standard of living. They said, "These are our aims. The country wants, a high and rising standard of living."

Mr. Scholefield Allen: On a point of order. Is the hon. Member allowed to repeat one expression at least three times?

Squadron Leader Burden: It was not my expression. It was an expression that the party opposite wrote in "Let Us Face the Future."

Mr. Speaker: I do not know exactly what the reference to "the party opposite" has to do with this Order.

Squadron Leader Burden: They are bringing it in. I suggest that there has not been this high and rising standard of living. If we estimate that the average room requires a carpet 12 yards square, the price of the cheapest in January, 1950, was £14 15s. 4d., and I would remind hon. Members that only 17 per cent. of the housewives who said they would need to buy them were willing to pay more than £11. This price was outside the range of others. That is rationing by the purse, and that is what I and my hon. Friends are objecting to. With this constant rise in prices it is becoming possible for fewer and fewer people to buy the goods they desire. Under the Order we are discussing the price is still further increased, and instead of £14 15s. 4d. is now £18 18s.
It is true that hon. Members opposite may say that there have been wage increases to enable people to pay these higher prices, but I suggest——

Mr. Speaker: The question is not whether anybody can or cannot afford the prices. One cannot go into that. One must stick to the Order and not bring in other general considerations.

Squadron Leader Burden: With due respect, Mr. Speaker, I think it does matter whether people can afford to buy the carpets of which the Government seek to increase the prices, but I will pass from that point.
Before the war the industry produced a carpet measuring 3 yds. x 4 yds. to sell at about £5. Under this Order the price of the same carpet is £30. Certainly the wages of the man who, in the Report of the Carpet Working Party was described as the person to whom the Report was referring, who was earning £5 10s. a week have not risen commensurately. Carpets are not luxury goods, and we believe that they should be within the reach of the working class. It is true that manufacturers asked for some increases, but 80 per cent. of the cost of carpets now is in the cost of raw materials, whereas it was 60 per cent. before the war. But the final price of the carpet is not governed only by the cost to the manufacturer and the retailer; it includes 33⅓ per cent. added by the Government.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember that these are maximum prices. They are not necessarily the prices which will be charged. The Order puts a limit on the top; that is all.

Squadron Leader Burden: Well, Sir, if I may refer to the cost of an Axminster carpet described as quality A1, in January, 1950, that carpet cost £136. As a result of this Order the same carpet will now cost £206.

An Hon. Member: That is the maximum price.

Mr. H. Hynd: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman state the size of the carpet?

Squadron Leader Burden: I do not suppose it really matters what the size is. [Laughter.]It does not matter a bit, because it is really a matter of the increase of price and the ratio of the price increase. I would point out that in June, 1945, the same carpet cost £100; after six years of Socialism the price today is £206.
Hon. Gentlemen have asked about maximum prices. I would remind them that the industry is under strict control. I believe the accounts of the industry were examined and the mark-ups and prices the industry were allowed to charge were fixed after consultation with the Board of Trade. It is also a fact that retailer margins are very strictly controlled. It is a pity that price increases from another quarter which also have to be added are not equally strictly controlled. I believe that the Government are cashing in on the rise in the price of raw materials, but they are certainly not allowing manufacturers or retailers to do so. There is no doubt that the order is another indication of the mad inflationary policy that the Government have been pursuing——

Mr. Speaker: That is not in order. It has nothing to do with the Question before the House.

Squadron Leader Burden: The industry is extremely worried about these constant increases. They are more and more concerned, because every increase in prices takes the possibility of purchase out of the hands of more and more people. They are concerned because of the fear


of unemployment in the industry due to the growing sales resistance as the result of constant price increases. The right hon. Gentleman who is to reply knows full well one way in which price increases can be kept within reasonable bounds. I know I shall be out of order if I mention it, but he knows to what I am referring, and I hope he will make representations to his right hon. Friend in due course.
I hope the Minister will realise that the people interviewed by the body set up by the Central Office of Information at the request of the working party already had carpets in their homes. How is it possible for newly-weds to purchase carpets at today's inflated prices? How is it possible for poor people with less than £10 a week to carpet their floors? These are matters for which the Government must take responsibility. Never before has this country been in such danger of being a carpetless country as it is today.

1.2 a.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I wonder what hon. Gentlemen opposite would say and what they would do if I were to announce to the House that their arguments and eloquence had convinced me and if I were to recommend the House to accept the Motion? I wonder if they have considered the effect of the Order being annulled?

Sir William Darling: Cheaper carpets! Go back to the previous Order.

Mr. Wilson: First of all, this Order would disappear. The prices in the schedule would no longer be the maximum prices that rule for the carpet industry. In the long negotiations which the Board of Trade have had with the carpet manufacturing industry, the carpet manufacturers have said that unless they get the maximum prices in this Order they could not maintain production.

Sir W. Darling: A point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has challenged the Opposition, of whom I am one, to give an answer. I am trying to make an answer.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Wilson: I have never challenged the Opposition. I merely said I wondered what they would do if I accepted their Motion. I have just informed the House that the manufacturers could not maintain production unless——

Sir W. Darling: What about the retailers?

Mr. Wilson: The retailers asked us for still higher prices than those in the Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Take off the Purchase Tax."] The House knows perfectly well that if this Order were annulled the carpet industry would be thrown immediately into dislocation and chaos. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Is that what hon. Members opposite want?

Squadron Leader Burden: Squadron Leader Burden rose——

Mr. Wilson: The hon. and gallant Member did not give way to interruptions from this side of the House——

Squadron Leader Burden: Yes, I did.

Hon. Members: Do not ask questions.

Mr. Wilson: All right, I will not ask any more questions, I will state a fact—that if this Order were annulled, hon. Members opposite would not be prepared to go to the carpet manufacturing centres and defend what they had done. There are wider implications than this if this order were annulled. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should realise that their systematic campaign against price control orders—because it is a systematic campaign—is not a campaign, as they may imagine, which is directed against this Government; it is not a campaign directed against the health of my hon. Friends; it is a campaign directed against the trade and industry of this country. Only this afternoon I received a telegram which I will not read to the House because I should be getting rather wide of the subject of carpets if I did—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why mention it then?"]—pressing for price revision because they could not maintain production unless there were increased prices.
I must stress to the House the urgency of these orders. There are at the present time some 50 or 60 trades or trade associations at the door of the Board of Trade clamouring for an increase——

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I do not desire to interrupt this interesting argument, but I would ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. If the President of the Board of Trade is proposing to deal generally with the increase in prices policy of His Majesty's Government, about which I have no objection whatsoever. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have no objection to his dealing with it—may I take it that in the subsequent debate a full opportunity will be given to my hon. Friends to reply?

Mr. Wilson: Both the hon. Members who have already spoken, have said a lot about the inflationary situation. I have no desire to go into the general question of costs and price increases in this country arising from the cost of imported raw materials, but what I do want to do is to inform the House of what would be the effect of annulling the Order at present before the House. I was hoping to prove to the satisfaction of hon. Members that if this Order was annulled, the whole basis of the negotiations with these 50 or 60 industries at present clamouring for price increases would be destroyed, and it would not be possible to maintain negotiations with them.
The basis of the negotiations in the case of carpets, for example—and they and other negotiations are very tough negotiations—is to protect the consumer as far as possible at a time when costs of production are rising. We try to proceed by agreement with the industries concerned, and that is what hon. Gentlemen opposite want. When on previous occasions I have reduced the margins of retailers and wholesalers and manufacturers without getting the agreement of the trades concerned, there was a howl of rage from the benches opposite. They complained that I should have proceeded by agreement. It is not always possible to get agreement. Sometimes we cannot agree with the demands for increases made by the trades concerned. We did not, for instance, agree with the suggestions of the carpet retailers. We considered that they must be satisfied with a lower percentage.
What I want to make clear to the House is that when we have these negotiations, it is important that the Board of Trade

should be in a position to honour whatever bargain is reached. These negotiations took place on the basis that whatever bargain was reached would appear in this Order afterwards. These Orders are, of course, in every case subject to the right of the House to reject them if they are badly drafted, or are objectionable in any way; but this new campaign against price control—and it is a new campaign, for in the last week the Opposition have put down four times as many Prayers to price control orders as there were in the whole——

Mr. Foster: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to that?

Mr. Speaker: I should like to hear the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wilson: If these Orders were annulled, following the Prayers put down, the whole basis of negotiation with trade would come to an end.

Mr. Foster: If, Mr. Speaker, you invite the right hon. Gentleman to repeat what he said, is it right of the right hon. Gentleman not to repeat what he 0said?

Mr. Speaker: That may have been the background. I cannot know. If there have been four Prayers laid against maximum price Orders, that may be the background to this. It is not out of order.

Mr. Wilson: This Prayer tonight and this campaign are making this long established system of negotiation with industry impossible. It is a system in which trade and industry had great confidence for a period of years. The effect of a Prayer such as this is likely to throw doubt on the Government's ability to honour a bargain reached in negotiations. I have already asked how I can be expected to continue to negotiate with these industries, including the carpet industry, if on every occasion the bargain which is reached is upset through a Prayer of this kind.
Both the hon. Gentlemen dealt with the increase in the price of carpets. They appeared tonight in the unfamiliar guise of protectors of the consumer. It is only a week ago that I was getting questions on carpets, the implication of which was to suggest that the prices I had laid down


were not high enough to meet the requirements of the manufacturers. Now, hon. Members opposite are pretending that they represent the consumer.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that I put down a question of that sort addressed to him?

Mr. Wilson: I should like to point out that there are other hon. Members capable of putting down questions. If the hon. Member wants to know, there was a question by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) last Thursday. [Interruption.]But the whole burden of the argument tonight is that we have been too lax in this price control Order, that we should have been tighter in our negotiations with the industry, and should not have allowed it to get away with these prices. It is no good hon. Members referring to Purchase Tax. That is outside the Order; the Order does not deal with it.
When hon. Members suggest that the prices are too high, that can only mean that they think we have been too gentle, and not tough enough, with the industry with which we have been negotiating, so that the costs of which we had to take account in this Order have risen for reasons within our control. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know perfectly well, though I do not want to enter into a general debate on raw materials, of the increased prices of imported wool, and of the increased cost of imported jute.

Squadron Leader Burden: Squadron Leader Burden rose——

Mr. Wilson: It is no good hon. Members posing as protectors of the consumer in this respect. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because the main reason for the increase in the cost of carpets, which we all deplore, is the increase in the cost of wool; and that is bought by private enterprise in accordance with well-worn rules of supply and demand. The only suggestion which the Opposition can make is that if we did not have price control then the manufacturers would be able to sell these carpets more cheaply. But the truth is that if it was not for our tough negotiations, the price of the carpets would be a good deal higher, despite all the speeches we have heard about "defending the consumer" and all the remarks which we are told are aimed at "protecting the consumer."
This Prayer, like all others against price control orders, is really an attempt to destroy the whole system of price control. If that is the idea, then, instead of the Opposition going in for this selective sniping in the small hours——

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have no wish to curtail the speech which the right hon. Gentleman is making, and he is entitled under the rules of order to make charges against us. But can I have the assurance that no Closure, or attempt to curtail the ability of hon. Members on this side to answer those charges, will be made?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must wait and see.

Mr. Wilson: In order to minimise the time which the hon. Member opposite may have to wait, I shall not enter into all the arguments about the causes of what they call inflation. They have produced no reasons why the House should annul this Order. They have wavered between saying that the price of carpets is too high, and that the price is too low. The whole burden of the attack on this Order, during which great play has been made with Purchase Tax, although it has been ruled that discussion on the new prices, because of that, was out of order, was that——

Mr. Foster: On a point of order. Is it right for the right hon. Gentleman to misrepresent, quite innocently I am sure, a Ruling which you, Mr. Speaker, have given? You will remember that your Ruling was that the increase of the price on carpets resulting from the new maximum prices in this Order could be mentioned. It was the main argument, and is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to shelter behind a non-existent Ruling?

Mr. Speaker: It is 1.20 in the morning, and I heard nothing out of order said by the right hon. Gentleman. It is very difficult to follow these arguments, and I do not think there has been anything out of order.

Mr. Wilson: I invite the House to reject this Motion and I challenge the Opposition to have the courage of conviction and to press this matter to a Division. I challenge hon. Members


opposite. I think I have successfully convinced even them that the effect of pressing this to a Division would be to destroy the whole system of confidence which has grown up in industry through past negotiations, and to drive British industry into unemployment. That would be the result.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Mr. R. J. Taylor rose in his place and claimed to move,"That the Question be now put."

Question, "That the Question be now put," put and agreed to.

Main Question put accordingly, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — JAPAN (PEACE TREATY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]

1.24 a.m.

Mr. Hamilton: Naturally I apologise for raising this matter at this hour, but what I wish to deal with is infinitely more important than what has been discussed, and certainly I am more sincere in mentioning it than were hon. Members opposite in what they were doing in the last few hours. I should say at the outset that this is the third night in succession that I have been kept here until six o'Clock in the morning by the tactics of the Opposition.
The issue I wish to raise is the making of a Japanese Peace Treaty. When we look at the international situation, it is rather surprising that the question of the future of Japan has seemed to be rather in the background. What action has been taken in the last few months has been taken entirely by America. There is a growing feeling in the country that our silence indicates certain consent to what is being said in the United States and by the United States representatives.
Technically the position is that Japan is still at war with 49 nations. She is still occupied by United States forces after more than five years of so-called peace. In that time the population has increased by 1,500,000 annually. She has a Government which is relatively stable, although there are internal economic difficulties. Although the country is not divided into zones as Germany is, we

still have no peace treaty. The reason for that is, of course, that for four years or more we have been suffering from Soviet obstruction. I believe that there is a genuine feeling in the country that a peace treaty now is really essential both for the prosperity of Japan and for victory, as I see it, for ourselves in the war of ideas which is going on at the moment in the international field.
I think we all agree that we want to stop the spread of Communism and we believe, on this side of the House at any rate, that Communism is feeding on mass poverty and nationalism. Although in Japan at the moment I do not think that Communism is a strong force, there is a continued occupation by United States forces, and those forces are being used for the exploitation of the occupation in their own political interest. Moreover, the prosperity of Japan depends, like our own, to an enormous extent on international trade and I believe that the elimination of poverty in Asia generally can be expedited by allowing Japan to trade freely.
Japan is the only Asiatic nation with an immediate industrial potential and that being so, the future of Asia must be based on a free and prosperous Japan. In paragraph II of the Potsdam Declaration, it is stated:
Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to re-arm for war.
To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted.
I should like to ask if that paragraph of the Potsdam Declaration is, in fact, still the policy of our Government. Do we want to see a Japan with a viable economy playing its part in Japanese and Asian prosperity, helping to eliminate poverty and helping to defeat the spread of Communism, without encouraging a resurgence of Japanese militarism?
That brings me to the whole point of Japanese re-armament. At the moment the Japanese question is in the background but there is a body of opinion in this country which is watching events in Japan, and particularly watching the utterances of Mr. Dulles and General MacArthur on this question. Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution expressly


forbids the maintenance of any kind of military force in Japan. Yet only last year General MacArthur authorised the formation of a National Police Reserve in Japan. Its approximate strength at the moment is about 75,000, and rumours in Tokyo are that it will be increased eventually to 500,000.
According to the American magazine "Life" of 5th February, this police force is now vigorously training throughout Japan, and it is strictly comparable to the police force that we are condemning in Eastern Germany. If that is the case, I should like to have the Minister's views. Were the Government consulted before the formation of that police force reserve or were they informed after the event? It is important that we should know that. It is as well to say in this House that there are many people in this country, and I must say that I share their view, who think that one of the greatest menaces to world peace is General MacArthur himself.
Australia and New Zealand fear Japanese re-armament. I believe most of the Japanese people do not want it. The Japanese Socialists not only reject re-armament but also the retention of United States bases in that country. I believe that there is a strong feeling of neutralism in Japan, and those sentiments reflect a pacifism we cannot ignore, or deplore either, because we all want to develop a sense of pacifism in Japan, Germany and throughout the world. Only in that way shall we eliminate the prospect of world war.
On the other hand, we are right to see to it that Japan must not become what Mr. Dulles called "a power vacuum," because we know from Korea what happens in a power vacuum with Communism on the march. The Soviet-Chinese Treaty of military alliance in February last year specifically designated the enemy as Japan or any other State which would unite with it. I believe that an entirely defenceless Japan would be an invitation to Communist imperialism. Therefore, the problem to me seems to be how we are to get security (a)for the allies, and (b)for Japan.
I feel that control of the imports of raw materials into Japan could quite easily prevent a resurgence of any kind of aggressive Japanese militarism, if we want to do that. I am not sure that General

MacArthur wants that, but if we do, we can prevent that resurgence, and in that respect there is no real menace from Japan. The real menace is to Japan, and the question is how we can build up the defences of Japan and at the same time prevent the rise of militarism and also give assurance to Australia and New Zealand that they will be in no way endangered as a result.
I would ask the Minister a few questions. First, can he give any assurance that we will go on towards making a peace treaty with the Japanese, if need be, without the Soviet and the Communist countries? Secondly, will the Government undertake to ensure that there is no rebirth of Japanese militarism, while also ensuring that there is no power vacuum that would invite Communist aggression, and that we go into any peace conference free from any kind of domination by what I would call the negative militarism of MacArthur and without being unduly influenced by what Mr. Dulles has got to say?
Thirdly, will the Government assure the country at large that, in seeking to make Japan prosperous—we all agree that she has somehow to be brought into the comity of nations, that she has got to be allowed to trade freely—we shall do everything in our power to prevent the repetition of unfair Japanese competition in foreign markets? Fourthly, have any steps been taken or any contemplated to bring Mr. Dulles here to engage in conversations and to give his personal views on his visit to the Far East, to Japan, the Philippines, New Zealand, and Australia? Lastly, will the Government undertake in all its negotiations to keep in the very closest contact with Australia and New Zealand, both of whom will want firm guarantees of security against any possible future Japanese aggression?
We hear a lot of talk from General MacArthur and the Americans that the Japanese have been re-educated. I am sceptical about that kind of claim. I refuse to believe that in five years Japan can change from a dictatorship or Fascist régime to a full-blooded democracy. I wonder whether the Government are fully convinced that Japan has turned over a new leaf, that the old clique has finally been ousted, and that we can leave Japan entirely to herself without danger from the old régime that is still very much in existence.
Finally, we want to eliminate the impression that our country is taking a back seat. The country wants to hear the Government's views on this issue now. As the present Minister of Labour said of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition: "His greatest enemy is time." Our greatest enemy on this question is time. I urge the Government to try and do what they can to expedite the formulation of a Japanese peace treaty.

1.40 a.m.

Mr. William Teeling: We ought to be grateful to the hon. Member for bringing this matter forward. It does give the Government an opportunity to tell the country, if only briefly, something of what they are doing. I have always been in favour of as rapid a peace treaty as possible with Japan, but recently I have become more nervous about that, in view of the actions of the United States in regard to Korea and the Far East. When I am told that this treaty is being pressed forward rapidly by the United States, I become still more alarmed, and I should like an assurance from the British Government that they are doing as much as they can to put a brake on some of the things that are happening. I think it is no exaggeration to say that if things go wrong with this treaty, it may well be the real cause of the third world war.
The United States are about to make a peace treaty with Japan. We are about to go in with them on that. What is going to happen with regard to Russia and China? It seems to me to be unprecedented historically. There will be two countries making a peace treaty with Japan, and Russia and China will have the full right to say that they have not made a treaty with her and have the full right to take over. Indeed, it has been reported that. General MacArthur would be prepared to remain and take control of the Russian and Chinese forces. That would indeed be ridiculous, and I should like some line from the Government on what their attitude would be if it were to happen.
There also arises the possibility of rearmament. I remember so well in Japan, not so long ago, talking to members of the present Government there, who in the

old days were very pro-British and sympathetically inclined towards us. They were pushed out before the war because of the increasing strength of the Army and Navy. When the war was over, the Army and Navy were pushed out of the picture, and the officers and men were sent back to their homes and not given any pension, and they had to be absorbed by their families. There is no doubt that a great deal of bitterness arose against General MacArthur and the Americans for forcing that on them. The Emperor and the Court were nervous that these troops might have become Communistically-inclined because of it. What steps are the Government taking to make sure that this possibility of rearmament is not going to put back into power people who have become Russian-minded? This is a grave danger that the Japanese Government foresee. They are in a dangerous position and might find themselves forced into a peace which would give an army back to their country which would in the end push them out.
Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what is happening to our representative, Sir Alvary Gascoigne, out there? I understand he has left Japan. Has he gone on leave? Is he coming home? Or where has he gone? Why at this critical moment is he not there? How recently has he seen General MacArthur? Is it not possibly true that one of the reasons why he is going is because he has not seen General MacArthur and sees no point in staying on? What steps are to be taken with regard to the financial clauses of the treaty? We should have reparations for British citizens, poor as well as rich, who have lost not only their homes but pretty well everything they had got. Those are the points I should like to put.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Driberg: I should like to emphasise the great danger that there is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) pointed out, in the National Police Reserve. The peace treaty with Japan will be the point at which it will be possible for the National Police Reserve to become an actual military force. It is now being very actively built up, as he said. It is being organised by the Americans on American lines and armed by them with every sort of weapon up to machine-guns. That


seems to many of us, probably on both sides of the House, rather a serious danger in view of the pacific tendencies which were supposed to be commended to the Japanese at the end of the war. So I hope that my hon. Friend will say something about that.

1.46 a.m.

The Minister of State (Mr. Younger): I am afraid that I have a very brief time in which to deal with this very important matter. I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) on the way in which he raised the subject and the extremely reasonable and balanced point of view which he expressed. I hope I shall not seem boastful in saying that it represents very much the point of view of His Majesty's Government in most respects.
My hon. Friend said that the British case seemed to be going by default and that the impression was that we were doing nothing about this. It may be true that we have not been able to be as specific as we would have liked—the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) knows that in the past I have not been able to be as specific about this as he would have liked or as I would have liked—but it is well known that not only we but also the other members of the Commonwealth have been expressing, at any rate through the diplomatic channel, if not very much in public, our views on this matter ever since the Canberra Conference of 1947 and the later Conference of 1950. It is, in fact, from our side that the pressure has come throughout that period for an early peace treaty. It is only relatively lately that the United States have appeared to feel the same sense of urgency, and, quite frankly, we have welcomed that, but we realise that there are certain dangers in moving very fast, having started rather late in trying to get a peace treaty.
In relation particularly to these matters of possible re-armament and so on, obviously there are very grave dangers involved. We feel that the first objective of the peace treaty must be to try to get a Japan which is viable and can offer her people a reasonable standard of living and can see some future for herself in association with all the democratic Powers. That is a very broad general statement which is very often very hard to apply. At the same time we appreciate

that it is impossible to contemplate leaving a power vacuum.
Whatever our intentions may have been about the permanent and complete disarmament of Japan to go on indefinitely as expressed in the article of the Constitution—I think we visualised it at the time as being perhaps possible in the context of a world also largely disarming—inevitably that conception must be to some extent reviewed when we see the level of armaments about us and the dangerous situation in the Far East, and when we contemplate the possibility that there might no longer be occupying forces in Japan, as there will presumably not be after a peace treaty, and that unless we make some provision for Japanese security she will be at the mercy of forces whom we should not like to see in charge of Japan.
As regards the police force created, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) made the essential point when he indicated that this, like almost any other police force, might become a military force after a peace treaty. It is true to say that it could not fairly be described as a military force now. It is a genuine police force. What should be the future of the force or of any other armed forces after a peace treaty is, as I have said, a matter for very careful consideration, and one of the things we take into account is the fact that we know that there are many—if I may say so—respectable forces in Japan which are not in favour of re-armament.
We have to ask in whose hands Japanese armaments would be, and we must clearly face the alternative if, as might happen and as the hon. Member suggested, we could not get participation from Russia and Chinese China in the peace treaty. They would still be in a state of war. We would have to be careful about what would happen about Japanese security. It would be asking a lot to ask our United States allies, who have borne the burden of this position since the end of the war, to contemplate going on indefinitely defending Japan entirely with American troops. This is an inescapable dilemma forced on us, as in the case of Germany in Europe, by the unfortunate fact that, instead of having disarmament we have had an increasing level of armaments in the brief period since the end of the war.
I was asked half a dozen questions by my hon. Friend, but I am afraid I have not time to answer more than one of them. He referred to Mr. Dulles. I should like to say here that Mr. Dulles has co-operated most fully with us ever since he was associated with this matter. We were very fully consulted and our representatives have frequently spoken to him. Mr. Dulles has told us that the United States could not contemplate any one Power putting a permanent veto on a Japanese treaty. We cannot allow the Soviet Union to hold up this matter indefinitely.
The hon. Member asked us to see that any settlement prevented the rebirth of militarism. We certainly hope to see to that. He asked whether we were not consulting together with Australia and New Zealand. The answer is certainly,

"Yes." We are fully aware of their great interest in the security aspect of this peace treaty. The interest of our people in the commercial side of the peace treaty must be for free trade but we hope to include provisions to safeguard our people against the malpractices which were only too common before the war.

Mr. Teeling: Sir Alvary Gascoigne?

Mr. Younger: Sir Alvary Gascoigne has left permanently, but not at all because he was unable to see General MacArthur. I am afraid I cannot give the name of his successor, but we are represented there still.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes to Two o'Clock a.m.